Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol

[EugeneS]

So I should be studying but fark it :-)

 

How much salbutamol did he actually have in his system?

 

****I don't like maths do please point out errors if you see them****

 

Chris' level was 2,000ng/ml - given that the average human has 5 litres of blood that is 10,000,000ng of Salbutamol in total.

 

Let's use mg cos that's more common in medicine: 10,000,000ng is 10,000mcg.

 

The normal ORAL dose for salbutamol is 8,000mcg up to a max of 24,000mcg per day.

 

So Chris had a fairly normal to low amount of salbutamol in his system in terms of ORAL use.

 

That said - max normal use for INHALERS is 1,200mcg per day. Recommended prevention is 400mcg 15 mins before you start exercise.

 

So compared to normal INHALER Chris is waaaay over normal use.

 

My final opinion (cos I really should learn some Danish now) is this: Chris abused a legal loophole for SKY's famous "marginal gains".

 

It'll be interesting to see how the UCI view it. Ulissi tried (and failed) to replicate his high Salbutamol levels at a UCI lab and got sanctioned - let's see if Chris and the SKY medicine men can get Chris to replicate a 2,000ng/ml level in a lab (or hand the UCI several reams of medical reports showing how it is theoretically possible).

 

Edit: Changed mg to mcg - thanks to rider#35 for pointing that out.

"Chris' level was 2,000ng/ml - given that the average human has 5 litres of blood that is 10,000,000ng of Salbutamol in total."

That first figure was reportedly a urine concentration - how do you derive the content in blood stream from a urine concentration? Rhetorical question: you can't. Stick to Danish.

[Eldron]

"Chris' level was 2,000ng/ml - given that the average human has 5 litres of blood that is 10,000,000ng of Salbutamol in total."

That first figure was reportedly a urine concentration - how do you derive the content in blood stream from a urine concentration? Rhetorical question: you can't. Stick to Danish.

You sound knowledgeable - how about you offer us an explanation to go with your derision? Edited December 13, 2017 by Eldron

[BigDL]

"Chris' level was 2,000ng/ml - given that the average human has 5 litres of blood that is 10,000,000ng of Salbutamol in total."

That first figure was reportedly a urine concentration - how do you derive the content in blood stream from a urine concentration? Rhetorical question: you can't. Stick to Danish.

What’s your explanation then China?

[Thor Buttox]

This is all very annoying...

[Gen]

Dear team s(insert inhaler here)y

 

 

This is what it is to be transparent with a zero tolerance..even if it isn't banned

 

[emoji122][emoji122]

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Gen]

Ah.. so now we know what the inspiration was behind their new kit

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Edited December 14, 2017 by Gen

[Pure Savage]

"Chris' level was 2,000ng/ml - given that the average human has 5 litres of blood that is 10,000,000ng of Salbutamol in total."

That first figure was reportedly a urine concentration - how do you derive the content in blood stream from a urine concentration? Rhetorical question: you can't. Stick to Danish.

Was talking to a forensic toxicologist last night at Xmas party, her thoughts are that due to the massive differences in people’s metabolism, excretion through urine and a few days other personal traits, unless they took a blood sample she reckons it would be pretty easy to get him off with zero ban.

[bleedToWin]

sure - but then one would reasonably assume that with ACUTE ASTHMA you shouldnt be winning grand tours, right?

Nah, if my chest is open it's fair game. It's mostly my lack of cycling talent that forced me to this desk job.

Jokes aside, asthma isn't a disability. It's easily kept under control and wont make a professional career in cycling any less likely. If they are spraying the vineyards in Stellenbosch I might get an attack during my warm-up, but it's usually easily cleared with a hit of the asthma pump and then I am once again just another bloke in the bunch.

[shaper]

Dear team s(insert inhaler here)y

 

 

This is what it is to be transparent with a zero tolerance..even if it isn't banned

 

[emoji122][emoji122]

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

So quick to judge, jury and condemn as guilty!!!

 

Am sure if Sky believed it to be more than an anomaly they would have suspended CF... but as it is by all reports Sky and CF do not seem overly concerned about it as it seems he was tested over 20 times prior, at the time and after the adverse finding!

 

Personally I prefer to wait for the actual outcome before trying to crucify someone on media hysteria and  conjecture!!

 

If guilty, then CF will deserve all that gets thrown his way!!.... if not, I see many here are going to look like fools

[geomark]

I think Twitter needs to do a bit more work on its translate function 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by geomark

[Gen]

So quick to judge, jury and condemn as guilty!!!

 

Am sure if Sky believed it to be more than an anomaly they would have suspended CF... but as it is by all reports Sky and CF do not seem overly concerned about it as it seems he was tested over 20 times prior, at the time and after the adverse finding!

 

Personally I prefer to wait for the actual outcome before trying to crucify someone on media hysteria and conjecture!!

 

If guilty, then CF will deserve all that gets thrown his way!!.... if not, I see many here are going to look like fools

Hey.. Transparency is being out in the open..their statement came 3 months after they were notified.. and had 2 papers not caught wind of it there would've been a statement until after the proceedings concluded..

 

Zero tolerance in this case would've been....provisionally suspended pending outcome.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Edited December 14, 2017 by Gen

[geomark]

So quick to judge, jury and condemn as guilty!!!

 

Am sure if Sky believed it to be more than an anomaly they would have suspended CF... but as it is by all reports Sky and CF do not seem overly concerned about it as it seems he was tested over 20 times prior, at the time and after the adverse finding!

 

Personally I prefer to wait for the actual outcome before trying to crucify someone on media hysteria and  conjecture!!

 

If guilty, then CF will deserve all that gets thrown his way!!.... if not, I see many here are going to look like fools

 Reminds me of this;

 

[geomark]

Hey.. Transparency is being out in the open..their statement came 3 months after they were notified..

 

Zero tolerance in this case would've been....provisionally suspended pending outcome.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

If Sky confident that the outcome is due to only the drugs administered by their medical team, then zero tolerance would not be provisional suspension surely.  (You can argue the rights and wrongs of what was administered by their medical team possibly)

 

If guys like Jeroen Swart are soft pedaling around the issue and tweeting links to various studies showing variable metabolism of the drugs etc then it is very unlikely to be an open and shut case.

[EugeneS]

You sound knowledgeable - how about you offer us an explanation to go with your derision?

Sorry, no derision intended! Even using blood concentration instead of urine, there are way too many pharmakokinetic variables involved to arrive at a blood content figure at a point in time. Also keep in mind substances cleared by the kidneys, first accumulate in the bladder over a period (which will vary according to person's hydration status) before being passed to the outside world. Concentration of urine (hence concentration of suspicious subtances) will vary greatly depending on one's fluid intake, which makes this urine salbutamol cut-off figure look laughably arbitrary and it should be contestable in Froome's case.

[Eldron]

Was talking to a forensic toxicologist last night at Xmas party, her thoughts are that due to the massive differences in people’s metabolism, excretion through urine and a few days other personal traits, unless they took a blood sample she reckons it would be pretty easy to get him off with zero ban.

I had a similar chat with my fiance - she cited a case where grapefruit inhibited the breakdown of blood pressure medication so patients took their normal dose for a day or two or three with very little entering the system. Day 4 rolled around and the patient suddenly had 2 to 3 times the prescribed dose in their body. Or something like that. I'm an engineer and she used a lot of biological/medical terms... Either way I reckon Sky medical have it sorted. As Gen pointed out - they've had a while to work on it.

[Gen]

Was talking to a forensic toxicologist last night at Xmas party, her thoughts are that due to the massive differences in people’s metabolism, excretion through urine and a few days other personal traits, unless they took a blood sample she reckons it would be pretty easy to get him off with zero ban.

Mmmm..... I don't know hey..Ullisi went with all that and the PK test and still received a ban...a precedent was set... there are numours cases to refer to..and they can not treat riders different.

 

They (UCI) have already shown favour by not releasing a statement after the original test result..

 

It will drag out for long if he receives a ban it will be backdated and he will serve no real ban but will lose the Vuelta title as well as Bronze in the world's TT.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk