Froome and Wiggins TUEs
- Thread starter Joffey
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Pro Tour Punditry
Guru
With the bottles full of urine...
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
This 23 minute video has an interesting discussion of the implications of the Froome case ...
So we finally get a bit more light into the darkness we've all been trying to see into
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/
"With an adjustment for dehydration, Froome's stage 18 Vuelta sample was still 19.05 per cent over the decision limit"
And amusingly...
"Froome doesn't hold a grudge against Hinault. "He's one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed, but if I see him I'll very happily explain it all in a bit more detail"
Did he just call Hinault a bit of an old doderrer. Cor blimey!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/
"With an adjustment for dehydration, Froome's stage 18 Vuelta sample was still 19.05 per cent over the decision limit"
And amusingly...
"Froome doesn't hold a grudge against Hinault. "He's one of the great champions. I imagine with age sometimes your wires get a little bit crossed, but if I see him I'll very happily explain it all in a bit more detail"
Did he just call Hinault a bit of an old doderrer. Cor blimey!
hoopdriver
Guru
- Location
- East Sussex
Amusingly disdainful, wasn’t it? And nothing that Hinault didn’t have coming.
And this bit is interesting if true.
"There are a lot of athletes who have been through this process and been cleared of wrongdoing without the cases being made public," Froome says. "People need to remember that. They are comparing mine to two or three others who received suspensions, but have failed to mention — because they aren't public — all the other cyclists and other athletes who have been through a similar process and been cleared. Quite a few reached out to me, shared their information and explained what they have been through. That gave me some hope."
Jimidh
Veteran
- Location
- Midlothian
This is from The Times in an interview with the Sports Scientist responsible for the Salbutamol regulations...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f
The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.
Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.
Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”
Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.
“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.
“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.
“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”
Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.
Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.
Now that's it's all finally coming out, what people were saying about the failed test is beginning to look just a little bit more stupid.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f
The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives.
Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”.
Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.”
Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol.
“I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity.
“From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome.
“If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.”
Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said.
Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.
Now that's it's all finally coming out, what people were saying about the failed test is beginning to look just a little bit more stupid.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
Up until now it has been up to the athlete to explain why a test sample was positive. It appears that Froome's defence argued that there were technical reasons why the test might not be as reliable as had previously been assumed. It would be up to WADA to prove that their test worked properly and they clearly did not have the confidence to go to court with it. Not only does that make the future of the Salbutamol limit very questionable, but it also opens up the possibility of tests for other drugs being questioned in the same way. It might be considered acceptable for a test to produce a 1% false positive rate, but a 20% false positive rate definitely would not be.
Adam4868
Legendary Member
So after all the speculation and damning accusations it's back to business as usual for Froomey.Besides his riding I think it's shown more of his mental strength throughout.Its a shame because no matter how you look at it people will still judge this as "no smoke without fire" as such.
For me the main thing is he never doubted himself and never rose to the bait.There really never was a case to answer.
For me the main thing is he never doubted himself and never rose to the bait.There really never was a case to answer.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
I just had a look back over what I've said about it to check whether or not it makes me look stupid...
Erm...
In my defence, I feel I was misled by the sciencey stuff explaining why the limit was set as it was. Not my fault if the sciencey boffins then go and change their minds!
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
Well, one thing we know after watching the amazing Froome breakaway mountain stage at the end of the Giro is that Sky were making damn sure that he did not get dehydrated that day - it looked like he was getting handed a bottle every 15-20 minutes! 
Hah! Did you look or is that a catch all. I wasn't particularly thinking of people on CC but dumb articles by people who should know better. I'm not thinking of any former riders or Aussie sports scientists or owt.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
I looked. Actually, I was genuinely interested to remind myself what I'd said previously, and I don't think I was that bad...
So, it seems Dr Bill Apollo may not have been quite as credible an expert as we first thought. And to be fair to Sky, the "prevarication and obfuscation" may have been more a case of "rigorous legal proceedings behind the scenes", but Brailsford never helps in these situations with his mealy-mouthed statements to the press.
There are a few people who say stupid things on CC, but mostly I think we're a level-headed bunch when it comes to assessing the available evidence. I guess we have to accept that the evidence available to us as casual observers may not be comprehensive or definitive.
I also feel vindicated not to trust anything Ross Tucker says as being impartial.
FishFright
More wheels than sense
It seems that the new clean is now 19.5% higher than it was a few weeks ago ....
