fantom1 

Based on the evidence so far, do you think Froome is guilty or not guilty? You can't abstain.

Please refrain from posting opinions, or post them in the current "Uh-Oh" thread.

Maelochs

I abstain.

Gyro

Guilty of what? ODing on his asthma meds? Personally, the more I read about him and Wiggins. It's time to dig up Henry the VIII. Fire up the Tower of London and persuade these gentlemen to supply the answers many want to hear. Bet it won't take any longer that it took Henry's helpers.

roadwarrior

Guilty of what?

superdex

wrong question. he is guilty of taking too much asthma medication. that part isn't the question; rather, what (if any) penalty should he get?

Gyro

Well, LeMond: "Chris Froome broke the rules and should be punished." Cyclingnews report

dabac

So he took too much of something which in itself isn’t banned.
What to do about that?
It’s against the rules, so something should be done.
Is there any evidence of how much benefit there actually is from high doses of asthma medicine?

I’ve got (mild) asthma myself, and while I can certainly feel and hear the difference between zero and prescribed dosage, I don’t notice any improvement between prescribed dosage and the levels of overdosing I’ve tried.
Once the airways are open, you can’t get them open-er - IME.
And - IME - the inhalers I use ALSO boost my resting heart rate if I double up.
It’s a bit unpleasant, and I rather doubt that it’s particularly useful in any situation.

CliffordK

I think this is a grey area.

Froome definitely needs to receive increased scrutiny. Perhaps the whole team. And, I think he should start looking for different asthma management which isn't so controversial.

However, it is not clear whether he was intending to cheat vs a number of things aligning such as concentrated urine and perhaps a bad day for asthma that all led to his high values on the test.

I would support throwing out the results for that one race (although it is a bit late now), but not a long suspension.

Maelochs

if the UCI has drug use rules and cannot test accurately enough to enforce them, in effect it has no rules. Well ,,, there is the "Be rich or Be French" rule ......

CliffordK

They do test it. And they can detect it.

The problem is that Froome is using Salbutamol for therapeutic use (at least so they claim), and the test is apparently of an absolute concentration in urine even though urine concentration regularly varies considerably.

At this point, I think we're in a wait and see pattern for the pharmacokinetic test, but if I was Froome, I'd be practicing what he can do to "fail" that test which likely will mean taking the maximum allowed dose. Perhaps taking the entire daily dose concentrated during the race, and being extremely dehydrated.

Urine is likely good for a pass/fail test. For variable concentration tests, they should be either comparing the target results to a standard like urine creatinine, or doing blood tests.

It is quite possible that even creatinine would vary significantly between athletes and conditions, but perhaps one could use a complex formula to match urine metabolites to blood concentrations, and thus avoiding repeated blood draws.

Maelochs

if the test can be gamed and faked and can provide false positive or false negatives ... the test doesn't work.

The whole appeal process is an admission that the tests are faulty.

San Pedro

Urine tests are easy to fool. Mostly one just needs to over-hydrate and then take a concentrated dose of stuff normally found in piss. Doing that during a race is probably much harder though, but might be easy enough to make levels of certain things seem lower than what they actually are.

redlude97

Are you just shooting from the hip or do you have evidence that this physiological range can be achievable based on the dosage claimed?

Maelochs

Gamed and faked? People on this and other sites have been discussing ways Froome could have showed that result (despite having a lot of doping knowledge on the team) and how he could fake the same result in a clinical environment (unnaturally low water intake, carefully times inhalations compared to the time of the test.)

Two other relatively prominent cyclists who turned in lower Salbutamol levels than Froome were banned for it. Were they unable to game the tests afterwards? or lacked the political or financial pull? or the popularity?

If they failed the test, and the test is valid, and the process is valid, why hasn’t Froome been similarly served?

Why is there even talk of being able to prove that the test is invalid? If the test were valid, ... pretty clearly no one would be able to prove in a lab that it wasn’t.

Equally clearly, if Froome can prove in a lab that the test gave a false positive or a false high reading based on a legitimate use of the inhaler ... then everyone else who has ever failed the test would have to be reinstated and a new test implemented, eh?

We shall see.

Some of the older dopers talked of EPO micro-injections to sneak past the daily blood passport tests, and other ways to fool other tests. Transfusions were a way to get past tests. Do you think those guys all quit trying to fake tests, if they were willing to go to those ends, just ... because?

Alberto Contador had the tiniest amounts of clenbuterol in his system. Little enough that scientific error was a consideration. He was busted, though he claimed contaminated meat. Others who made similar claims have gotten off. If Contador had not squeaked through almost cleanly on Operacion Porto, he might not have gotten people so hard after him for clenbuterol.

The fact that there is an appeals process makes it clear that the tests aren’t certain. If they were, no one could appeal.

Finally there is Lance, who doped hard for over a decade and was “Never caught.” No more clear indictment of the system could be made.

If the tests worked and were reliable, riders whose A and B samples both failed would be penalized immediately. If the process were not affected by rider popularity, money, or politics, same deal—bad test would equal penalty.

If a jury at CAS has to decide if the science is valid ... it ain’t science.

redlude97

Honest question. Are you a scientist? That is not how science works. The test works, the results, as presented, are not disputable. Gaming the system around the rules set forth by nonscientist is what is subject to interpretation, and happens in just about every field to gain an advantage. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with the science.

CliffordK

Ok, here are two studies:

https://www.doping.chuv.ch/files/salbutamol_03.pdf

The first study shows some pretty high results

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22388343

For the studies above, the dose is apparently approximately 0.1mg (100 μg) per puff, with the legal limit being .8mg (800 μg) per 12 hours, or 1.6 mg, (1600 μg) per 24 hrs.

I.E. I believe that Froome is allowed up to 8 puffs.

I haven't taken the stuff, but it would seem to be mighty easy to lose count, and take an extra puff or two, especially if one encounters adverse conditions, or develops a stress-->puff conditioned response.

Maelochs

Oi. Talk about failing to grasp what you are already holding ...

Exactly. if the "science" is not definitive---that is, if the result of the experiment is so unclear that it must be interpreted by a jury which might either confirm or reject it ... then it is NOT a scientific test.

Science produces fact--experimental results. If the result of the experiment is not clear, the experiment failed.

if the test, which shows Froome cheated, might have actually given that result when he Didn't cheat, then the test is not a definitive test. The experiment needs to be redesigned to yield definitive data.

In this case, there are a number of situations which could have led to the result ... but the test is supposed to test One Thing---whether he cheated. The test did not do that, ergo, the test failed.

If you were buying testing a equipment for a business and the salesperson told you that the equipment would deliver information but that information would not include any information which you needed .... how many would you buy?

redlude97

How is the result not definitive? The reading is definitive.

The result of the experiment is clear. The variables that effect the results are not, this is very different. A+B+C=Z, you measure Z. Athlete claims A=this. What were B and C and could they have combined with A to give Z. Z result is not in question. You are misapplying experiment and test. We haven't been provided with how they arrived at 8 puffs<=1000ng/ml as the cutoff and if they are actually correlated with each other. Hence if froome can replicate the readings with that dosage and conditions he can prove he didn't cheat.

This shows me you aren't a scientist, you would never specify this as the result of your test. The result of an experiment is just that. How you interpret the result and what conclusions you can draw are what can vary.


A piece of equipment gives you a reading, thats it. A pH meter or glucose meter just gives you a value. What you decide to do with that value is up to you. Did someone put some vinegar in the water or baking soda, or did the water contain more dissolved CO2 than normal, or something else? who knows for sure but that doesn't mean the pH meter failed.

Maelochs

I am not a professional scientist (are you?) but I understand scientific method,a nd that all results tell the experimenter Something.

I also understand that in this case the "test" provided a reading which indicated an excess.

Since the test cannot determine what matters, though ..... it is a useless test.

if an experiment produces ambiguous results, you run it again (can't do that this time.) If it continually provides ambiguous results ... results which neither confirm or disprove the hypothesis --- then the experiment is invalid. All it tested ultimately was itself, and it failed. The experiment needs to be redesigned to actually test the hypothesis.

The test here yielded results which cannot definitively determine if Froome to an excess dose, or if simply too much remained in his body due to his schedule or urination and his possible dehydration. Therefore the test did not even definitively determine whether he took too much.

Sounds like to many uncontrolled factors for a valid experimental result----poorly designed experiment.

If the rider can massively fail a test and be judged to have passed by a jury .... the whole system is pointless. All that is being tested are the ability of the lawyers to work the jury.

You can say "The test produced the result---that is definitive" and you can keep saying that. The point obviously isn't What the test said anyway ... but what the UCI or WADA or ultimately CAS decides the test actually said.

Before this goes into more unpleasant realms ... let's walk away. We can revisit all this when some new info comes in.

It is fine that we think differently ... you are right in your realm, and I, in mine ... and in both cases that is meaningless because some guys who know less about science or cycling than either of us are likely going to make the call.

Going to skip riding tonight and try to snag a group ride tomorrow ... see how long I can hang before I get dropped. That's what i think about all this.

Doge

What even is that?

pesty

Yea... guilty... but then they're all guilty. EVEN LEMOND!!! yes.. there, I've said it... Golden Greg is a f-ing doper!! He beat dopers... he must be one as well.

redlude97

The problem with your logic is that you are taking froome's statement at face value, ie the input into the experiment, but we don't actually know how many puffs he took in the timeframe.

We don't know how the input or output limits were set and how the limits were defined in the test. They may or may not correspond to the physiological response. The testing @CliffordK presented shows that using the dosing under the input limit, the reading can exceed the output limit. So the limits set by WADA are not necessarily based on the science, so saying it is a bad test or bad science is disingenuous, and as you alluded to, may have been determined by those that don't know the science.

Maelochs

I see I have failed to make myselff clear.

My point is simple: There is a test, which is supposed to test the amount of salbutamol in a rider's urine after the race. The test , however, can be ignored as desired---if a team can create in a lab a result which approximates the test, whether or not that was the actual situation during the race, the test results can be tossed.

If the team lobbies sufficiently that Froome didn't cheat, even though the test shows that he exceeded the limit, he might be given a symbolic penalty or no penalty. The test result gets tossed.

It makes no difference if Froome took one puff, one dozen puffs, one hundred puffs, or two pills and an injection. (Keep in mind, he might also have taken salbutamol to mask some other PED.) It doesn't matter How the drug got into his body, or even How Much was in his urine when the race ended.

What matters is what kind of deal Sky can make with whichever body ... UCI, WADA, or ultimately CAS.

The "test" doesn't end up "testing" anything. What matters is not the amount of salbutamol in the sample, but the pressure Team Sky can put on the various "governing bodies."

Science doesn't include the idea of a jury making a decision. Good science is when the experimental results yield a clear understanding of reality. It is not susceptible to a jury .... for instance, the Church could tell Galileo that the Earth was the center of the universe, but Galileo's experiment proved otherwise.

That is good science. The "test" yields unambiguous results. The hypothesis is borne out by the experimental results. The decision of the "jury" is meaningless.

In Froome's case, the hypothesis, that a person can only have a given amount of salbutamol in his/her system through cheating, is totally Not proven. In fact, good science seems to indicate that under certain conditions, a person can fail "the test" by using far less than the allowable amount.

But that is only part of it---in this case, "The Church" (UCI, CAS) can actually change the relevant reality.

The Church couldn't make the Earth stop orbiting the Sun, but they can make Froome stop cycling---or they can stop the inquiry into whether he actually took illegal amounts of the drug via illegal means.

The only actual "science" anywhere in the whole process is in the actual measuring of ppm of salbutamol ... but since that number has no interest to anyone anywhere throughout the process ....

dim

what you have to ask is:

does this drug help you to go faster and further?

did Froome really need that much to breathe normally or did overdose so as to go faster?

he knew that he would be tested after the race, so was he off form and needed a good ride?.... or did he genuinley need that amount?

too many questions .. you cannot disprove anything and his lawyers are laughing and will throw the case out of court

Scarbo

Good point.

I mean, if Mary Baker Eddy and Ron Hubbard could call themselves "scientists" . . . .