Updated: ASO exclude Chris Froome from the Tour de France - Team Sky "confident" of winning appeal

Pitbull Steelers wrote:

I'm a fan of Sky and i'm confident Froome will be cleared, but probably on some form of technicality which cant be proven either way. 

The ASO are within their rights (and written rules) to not allow a person to take part blah blah blah. However the timing of this stinks and it has been done deliberately to try and cause problems for Sky. 

In the end, after his Giro ride, i dont think he would win, look at Quintana last year but if Sky succeed with the appeal it will hand Froome and the team a massive boost, a bit like an Alex Ferguson half time team talk.

Bans have been handed out before without the case being proven, let's hope for some consistency. It wouldn't sit well with me if one is dealt with one way, and another is dealt with differently, it shouldn't with anyone else.

Butty wrote:

It can't be a coincidence that this story gets released today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44654688

More shit to add add to the bubbling pot.

Even if CF is cleared, it is very likely that he'll be in a yellow coloured jersey from stage 1, but it won't be  as GC leader.

Foolish Sky for going for the white tops

Kapelmuur wrote:

Meanwhile Virenque will be welcomed and idolised by the French public and media as usual, Merckx is being honoured next year in Flanders and no doubt Vinocourov and his team will not have any questions asked about their conduct.

Such blatant hypocricy.

Yep.

It seems to me that the media (particularly the French media) has made it cool/trendy/whatever to despise Chris Froome/Team Sky and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. I don't like or hate Team Sky more or less than any other pro team.

Suppose Romain Bardet had been caught out in similar circumstances and was subject to the same investigation as Froome - I wonder if the ASO would ban Bardet from the TdF... (of course we all know they wouldn't!).

rswift wrote:

And given the teams are only now announcing their rosters, how could ASO have done this much earlier?

Why? Because they weren't sure Froome would be chosen? Nonsense.

If the ASO had wanted to go down this route they could have done so weeks back. Considering his previous 30 year role within the ASO the timing of Hinault's comments are no coincidence.

rswift wrote:

If I organise a party, book the venue, the DJ, food and so on, and one of the rules of my party organising is that I get to choose who can attend, and decide you1, you2 & you3, but not4 you can come along, surely if you4 takes me to court in order to have them overrule my rights (as per my published rules) the the atmosphere when you4 rocks up is hardly going to be fabulous is it?

Regardless whether Mr Foome is innocent or was in the wrong, surely Sky are aware that by doing this, they’re bullying the ASO who’ve exercised (rightly or wrongly) their right not to invite a given rider for reasons that are documented and published? And given the teams are only now announcing their rosters, how could ASO have done this much earlier?

But conversely, if you organise a party, make it part of the UCpartI World Tour, you can hardly complain when you are held to UCpartI rules....

Rich_cb wrote:

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Froome's revised result was 1492, the 'actionable' threshold is 1200. So Froome was about 25% over. The maximum limit is based on a maximum does in 12 hours of 1600mcg or 8 puffs on an inhaler. So at 25% over the maximum permissible level Froome stands accused of taking 2 additional puffs on his inhaler. It's hardly Festina mk 2. Figures from Velonews: http://www.velonews.com/2018/05/news/expert-new-salbutamol-study-not-gam...

Totally agree that such a minimal amount over the limit should be ignored, pretty much in line with Contador having levels so low that they shouldn't have been picked up on, and the rest was all speculation and assumption. Now that's sorted, we can give him back 2010 TdF and 2011 Giro titles then. I do expect there to be a reaction justifying Contador's ban while holding Froomedog as a clean rider.

don simon wrote:

Totally agree that such a minimal amount over the limit should be ignored, pretty much in line with Contador having levels so low that they shouldn't have been picked up on, and the rest was all speculation and assumption. Now that's sorted, we can give him back 2010 TdF and 2011 Giro titles then. I do expect there to be a reaction justifying Contador's ban while holding Froomedog as a clean rider.

 

Froome tested positive for a 'specified substance' which doesn't automatically result in a ban.

Contador tested positive for a 'prohibited substance' which does.

In fact according to UCI regulations Contador should have been provisionally suspended as soon as the finding became apparent making him ineligible for the titles he later won.

Contador's case was handled very badly and not in accordance with UCI rules resulting in the ensuing fiasco.

Froome's case is being handled in accordance with the regulations.

The only divergence being his loss of anonymity.

Rich_cb wrote:

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Froome's revised result was 1492, the 'actionable' threshold is 1200. So Froome was about 25% over. The maximum limit is based on a maximum does in 12 hours of 1600mcg or 8 puffs on an inhaler. So at 25% over the maximum permissible level Froome stands accused of taking 2 additional puffs on his inhaler. It's hardly Festina mk 2. Figures from Velonews: http://www.velonews.com/2018/05/news/expert-new-salbutamol-study-not-gam...

Where are you getting this "actionable threshold" of "1200" (units?) from? It's not in that link. Further, the WADA regulations state the threshold is 1000 ng/mL, see https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all...

"presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL ... is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)"

1492 ng/mL is ~50% over the (generous) limit. 

The recent dutch study on salbutamol was based on virtual, computer models, and is not consistent with actual human studies (inc. with deliberately dehydrated subjects), from what I've read from Ross Tucker. Even so, all those studies still indicate that very "high"/concentrated (i.e. many puffs in short order) inhaled doses, in excess of what would be therapeutically suggested, are required to see a /low/ rate of false positives (15.4%) within the /12 hour/ WADA-allowable salbutamol dose limit (800mcg) in the case of a /virtual/ *computer model* study, or _even lower_ false positive rates (1.2%) with /real/ subjects inhaling the /24 hour/ permitted dose (1600mcg) in short order.

Chris Froome at the time stated he'd had only 2 or 3 puffs of his inhaler.

Ventolin inhalers dispense ~100mcg per actuation it appears. Recommended doses for EIA are 2 puffs (180mcg) 15 to 30 mins prior to exercise, and a maximum of 800 mcg per day (24 hours).

Even if you believe the dutch, computer study, there is only a 15.4% chance of a false-positive, _IFF_ Chris was taking salbutamol in a manner *not consistent* with either _therapeutic use_ or _his own words_.

There is simply no way known to science - even the "dodgier" science - that Chris could have had that level of salbutamol in his urine due to use consistent with therapeutic use to treat EIA.

Paul J wrote:

Where are you getting this "actionable threshold" of "1200" (units?) from? It's not in that link. Further, the WADA regulations state the threshold is 1000 ng/mL, see https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all...

"presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL ... is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)"

1492 ng/mL is ~50% over the limit. 

The recent dutch study on salbutamol was based on virtual, computer models, and is not consistent with actual human studies (inc. with deliberately dehydrated subjects), from what I've read from Ross Tucker. Even so, all those studies still indicate that very "high"/concentrated (i.e. many puffs in short order) inhaled doses, in excess of what would be therapeutically suggested, are required to see a /low/ rate of false positives (15.4%) within the /12 hour/ WADA-allowable salbutamol dose limit (800mcg) in the case of a /virtual/ *computer model* study, or _even lower_ false positive rates (1.2%) with /real/ subjects inhaling the /24 hour/ permitted dose (1600mcg) in short order.

Chris Froome at the time stated he'd had only 2 or 3 puffs of his inhaler.

Even if you believe the dutch, computer study, there is only a 15.4% chance of a false-positive, _IFF_ Chris was taking salbutamol in a manner /not consistent/ with either therapeutic use or his own words.

 

It is in the link. Under the sub heading 'Froome Levels Recalibrated'.

Even at 1.2% that would lead to regular false positives, at 15.4% the test is basically worthless.

Drug metabolism and excretion is not an exact science, there are myriad variables at work so any rule based on a set level is likely to be flawed.

Rich_cb wrote:

It is in the link. Under the sub heading 'Froome Levels Recalibrated'.

Huh, and where are they getting that figure from? The WADA threshold is 1000 ng/mL - not 1200 - as I quoted.

Rich_cb wrote:

Even at 1.2% that would lead to regular false positives, at 15.4% the test is basically worthless. Drug metabolism and excretion is not an exact science, there are myriad variables at work so any rule based on a set level is likely to be flawed.

Note that 1.2% or 15.4% "false positive" rates still require puffing *4 to 8 times* more doses than the therapeutic guidelines. (And the 15.4% study is a computer model, and an order of magnitude out from the human study).

Even if Froome gets away with this based on those studies, there is _no way_ he can claim he was taking doses consistent with EIA treatment.

Paul J wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Froome's revised result was 1492, the 'actionable' threshold is 1200. So Froome was about 25% over. The maximum limit is based on a maximum does in 12 hours of 1600mcg or 8 puffs on an inhaler. So at 25% over the maximum permissible level Froome stands accused of taking 2 additional puffs on his inhaler. It's hardly Festina mk 2. Figures from Velonews: http://www.velonews.com/2018/05/news/expert-new-salbutamol-study-not-gam...

 

Where are you getting this "actionable threshold" of "1200" (units?) from? It's not in that link. Further, the WADA regulations state the threshold is 1000 ng/mL, see https://www.wada-ama.org/en/content/what-is-prohibited/prohibited-at-all...

"presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL ... is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)"

1492 ng/mL is ~50% over the (generous) limit. 

The recent dutch study on salbutamol was based on virtual, computer models, and is not consistent with actual human studies (inc. with deliberately dehydrated subjects), from what I've read from Ross Tucker. Even so, all those studies still indicate that very "high"/concentrated (i.e. many puffs in short order) inhaled doses, in excess of what would be therapeutically suggested, are required to see a /low/ rate of false positives (15.4%) within the /12 hour/ WADA-allowable salbutamol dose limit (800mcg) in the case of a /virtual/ *computer model* study, or _even lower_ false positive rates (1.2%) with /real/ subjects inhaling the /24 hour/ permitted dose (1600mcg) in short order.

Chris Froome at the time stated he'd had only 2 or 3 puffs of his inhaler.

Ventolin inhalers dispense ~100mcg per actuation it appears. Recommended doses for EIA are 2 puffs (180mcg) 15 to 30 mins prior to exercise, and a maximum of 800 mcg per day (24 hours).

Even if you believe the dutch, computer study, there is only a 15.4% chance of a false-positive, _IFF_ Chris was taking salbutamol in a manner *not consistent* with either _therapeutic use_ or _his own words_.

There is simply no way known to science - even the "dodgier" science - that Chris could have had that level of salbutamol in his urine due to use consistent with therapeutic use to treat EIA.

You are largely right, up to your last sentence. "There is simply no way known to science..."

If you read the entirety of Ross's posts you will see that there are plenty of ways to return a reading of > 1000 ng, and that the particular testing protocol is not particularly consistent. At least 2 previous riders have shown that they have returned levels of > 1500ng while still adhering to the dosage scheme.

It's an imperfect protocol, but due to limits in practicality and cost, the best we have available at the minute.

And 15.4% chance of a false positive is, in medical terms, ridiculously high. You would never go to a doctor for a career ending  procedure that only had an 85% chance of a successful outcome

madcarew wrote:

You are largely right, up to your last sentence. "There is simply no way known to science..."

If you read the entirety of Ross's posts

You havn't read my post.

madcarew wrote:

you will see that there are plenty of ways to return a reading of > 1000 ng, and that the particular testing protocol is not particularly consistent. At least 2 previous riders have shown that they have returned levels of > 1500ng while still adhering to the dosage scheme.

No, while adhering to the *WADA maximum* dosage in a 12 or 24 hour period, except taking that dosage in one go.

The WADA maximum dosage, necked down in one go, *far exceeds* the recommended therapeutic guidelines, precisely to be very very generous and avoid false positives.

So, yes, Froome may get off based on those studies because /maybe/ he was just inside the _very generous_ WADA limit. However, there is still no way known to science that he was using an inhaler in a manner consistent with dosing recommendations for EIA.

madcarew wrote:

 

It's an imperfect protocol, but due to limits in practicality and cost, the best we have available at the minute.

And 15.4% chance of a false positive is, in medical terms, ridiculously high. You would never go to a doctor for a career ending  procedure that only had an 85% chance of a successful outcome

Again, with those studies, the simulated subjects were taking 800mcg (the maximum dosage to be taken daily, per therapeutic guidelines) *in one go*. In the human study, some were taking 1600 mcg in one go. Chris said he took only 2, 3 puffs, i.e. the recommended 200mcg.

Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

Paul J wrote:

madcarew wrote:

You are largely right, up to your last sentence. "There is simply no way known to science..."

If you read the entirety of Ross's posts

You havn't read my post.

madcarew wrote:

you will see that there are plenty of ways to return a reading of > 1000 ng, and that the particular testing protocol is not particularly consistent. At least 2 previous riders have shown that they have returned levels of > 1500ng while still adhering to the dosage scheme.

No, while adhering to the *WADA maximum* dosage in a 12 or 24 hour period, except taking that dosage in one go.

The WADA maximum dosage, necked down in one go, *far exceeds* the recommended therapeutic guidelines, precisely to be very very generous and avoid false positives.

So, yes, Froome may get off based on those studies because /maybe/ he was just inside the _very generous_ WADA limit. However, there is still no way known to science that he was using an inhaler in a manner consistent with dosing recommendations for EIA.

madcarew wrote:

 

It's an imperfect protocol, but due to limits in practicality and cost, the best we have available at the minute.

And 15.4% chance of a false positive is, in medical terms, ridiculously high. You would never go to a doctor for a career ending  procedure that only had an 85% chance of a successful outcome

Again, with those studies, the simulated subjects were taking 800mcg (the maximum dosage to be taken daily, per therapeutic guidelines) *in one go*. In the human study, some were taking 1600 mcg in one go. Chris said he took only 2, 3 puffs, i.e. the recommended 200mcg.

Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

Firstly the most commonly used Salbutamol inhaler is 200mcg per puff. So even if Froome only took 3 puffs as you claim (I have not see that claim elsewhere) then he will have inhaled 600mcg or 600000ng.

If 600000ng go in I think there is a pretty obvious way that 1500ng/ml could come out.

Rich_cb wrote:

Paul J wrote:

madcarew wrote:

You are largely right, up to your last sentence. "There is simply no way known to science..."

If you read the entirety of Ross's posts

You havn't read my post.

madcarew wrote:

you will see that there are plenty of ways to return a reading of > 1000 ng, and that the particular testing protocol is not particularly consistent. At least 2 previous riders have shown that they have returned levels of > 1500ng while still adhering to the dosage scheme.

No, while adhering to the *WADA maximum* dosage in a 12 or 24 hour period, except taking that dosage in one go.

The WADA maximum dosage, necked down in one go, *far exceeds* the recommended therapeutic guidelines, precisely to be very very generous and avoid false positives.

So, yes, Froome may get off based on those studies because /maybe/ he was just inside the _very generous_ WADA limit. However, there is still no way known to science that he was using an inhaler in a manner consistent with dosing recommendations for EIA.

madcarew wrote:

 

It's an imperfect protocol, but due to limits in practicality and cost, the best we have available at the minute.

And 15.4% chance of a false positive is, in medical terms, ridiculously high. You would never go to a doctor for a career ending  procedure that only had an 85% chance of a successful outcome

Again, with those studies, the simulated subjects were taking 800mcg (the maximum dosage to be taken daily, per therapeutic guidelines) *in one go*. In the human study, some were taking 1600 mcg in one go. Chris said he took only 2, 3 puffs, i.e. the recommended 200mcg.

Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

Firstly the most commonly used Salbutamol inhaler is 200mcg per puff. So even if Froome only took 3 puffs as you claim (I have not see that claim elsewhere) then he will have inhaled 600mcg or 600000ng. If 600000ng go in I think there is a pretty obvious way that 1500ng/ml could come out.

Well that's that sorted then. I can't see what's taking the experts with all the datas so long to sort it out.

don simon wrote:

Well that's that sorted then. I can't see what's taking the experts with all the datas so long to sort it out.

We're waiting for the experts to do the pharmacokinetic study.

Until then it's all pure speculation.

It's entirely possible that Froome stuck to the allowed dose and yet tested positive.

It's also entirely possible that he exceeded the allowed dose.

Until we get the results of the pharmacokinetic study we simply don't know which is true.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

Well that's that sorted then. I can't see what's taking the experts with all the datas so long to sort it out.

We're waiting for the experts to do the pharmacokinetic study. Until then it's all pure speculation. It's entirely possible that Froome stuck to the allowed dose and yet tested positive. It's also entirely possible that he exceeded the allowed dose. Until we get the results of the pharmacokinetic study we simply don't know which is true.

Quote:

If 600000ng go in I think there is a pretty obvious way that 1500ng/ml could come out.

So do you think it's obvious or not? On one hand you're pointing at an obvious conclusion and within seconds you're coming in where the rest of the right thinking world is. Sort yourself out.

don simon wrote:

So do you think it's obvious or not? On one hand you're pointing at an obvious conclusion and within seconds you're coming in where the rest of the right thinking world is. Sort yourself out.

You've had a bit of a comprehension fail there.

I was replying to a poster who claimed it was impossible to test positive while adhering to the rules.

There is an obvious way for Froome to test positive yet not have broken any rules.

There is also an obvious way for Froome to test positive after breaking the rules.