Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol

[fabs]

Complete story on BBC ...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42345354

 

Tests that were done .....

 

"He was notified of the "adverse analytical finding" on 20 September 2017.

The urine test, taken on 7 September, showed levels of salbutamol, which is commonly taken for asthma, were at 2,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml).

That compares to the World Anti-Doping Agency's (Wada) threshold of 1,000 ng/ml.

"I have been a professional cyclist now, treating my symptoms and racing with asthma, for 10 years," said Froome.

"I know what those rules are, I know what those limits are and I have never been over those limits.

"I have got a very clear routine when I use my inhaler and how many times. I have given all that information to the UCI to help get to the bottom of it."

 

Recent history of previous cases ...

 

"Italian rider Diego Ulissi got a nine-month ban in 2014 for having 1,920ng/ml in his test results and countryman Alessandro Petacchi was banned for a year for a reading of 1,320ng/ml in 2007."

 

 

Bye, bye Froomie ....

[shaper]

Fact is he tested 2 x over the limit. A and B samples confirm this.

 

Fact is the day he tested over the limit he increased his lead after losing time the day before.

 

Hypothesis seems to be that he could have been dehydrated and peed funny that day...amongst many other factor never seen before that day. [emoji6][emoji6].

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

And that is all the facts we have to date!!... due process has yet to be done

 

Hypothesis is just that........not worth the screen it is written on....

 

If guilty throw the book at him.... have a feeling it could turn into another Lance if found to be so !!

[openmind]

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

 

IMG_5006.PNG

That's actually a pretty good translation!

[Eldron]

Ahhhh Tony Martin - so quick to throw his toys - so bad at remembering rules.

 

Chris could carry on riding because salbutamol doesn't carry a mandatory suspension.

 

A sample finding and B sample testing happened behind closed doors because that's actually how it's supposed to happen. We only hear about A sample findings because UCI and testing facilities have more leaks than Zumas fire pool.

[Andrew Steer]

Twist away... but Zuma has been found guilty on a number of occasions #justdealingwithfacts

Ah, awesome... when is sentencing?

 

Shaper, you're a good guy, but you're getting a little hot under the collar here if I'm honest.

 

Debate is good, if we didn't discuss the grey areas in life, there would be very little to discuss 

 

There is a lot here that doesn't add up, and we're fully entitled to be sceptical

 

Allow us that much    I don't think anyone has suggested we petrol bomb his Parkhurst home... yet 

[Eldron]

Complete story on BBC ...

http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/42345354

 

Tests that were done .....

 

"He was notified of the "adverse analytical finding" on 20 September 2017.

The urine test, taken on 7 September, showed levels of salbutamol, which is commonly taken for asthma, were at 2,000 nanograms per millilitre (ng/ml).

That compares to the World Anti-Doping Agency's (Wada) threshold of 1,000 ng/ml.

"I have been a professional cyclist now, treating my symptoms and racing with asthma, for 10 years," said Froome.

"I know what those rules are, I know what those limits are and I have never been over those limits.

"I have got a very clear routine when I use my inhaler and how many times. I have given all that information to the UCI to help get to the bottom of it."

 

Recent history of previous cases ...

 

"Italian rider Diego Ulissi got a nine-month ban in 2014 for having 1,920ng/ml in his test results and countryman Alessandro Petacchi was banned for a year for a reading of 1,320ng/ml in 2007."

 

 

Bye, bye Froomie ....

You gotta read more man. Salbutamol rules have changed since Petacchi's fail and Ulissi failed a UCI pharmacokinetic test before he was found guilty.

 

I reckon SKY have the medical resources to get Chris through his pharmacokinetic test.

 

My opinion is he'll pass his UCI test with flying colours but fail the social media justice system horribly.

[shaper]

Ah, awesome... when is sentencing?

 

Shaper, you're a good guy, but you're getting a little hot under the collar here if I'm honest.

 

Debate is good, if we didn't discuss the grey areas in life, there would be very little to discuss 

 

There is a lot here that doesn't add up, and we're fully entitled to be sceptical

 

Allow us that much    I don't think anyone has suggested we petrol bomb his Parkhurst home... yet 

Hubbers only own pitchforks

[Andrew Steer]

You gotta read more man. Salbutamol rules have changed since Petacchi's fail and Ulissi failed a UCI pharmacokinetic test before he was found guilty.

 

I reckon SKY have the medical resources to get Chris through his pharmacokinetic test.

 

My opinion is he'll pass his UCI test with flying colours but fail the social media justice system horribly.

 

You mean the Sky money train will try dig him out of this hole?

 

Honestly, straight up Eldron... he's tested all the time, the Salbutamol will be in all his tests, on a certain level... lets say 200 - 400mcg. Suddenly, in the middle of the Vuelta, after he's just had a rough day and lost time, he tests at a level double the maximum allowed and I'm guessing 5-10 times his usual amount, and that just happens to be on the day he makes a super comeback and smokes his rivals pretty much clinching the Vuelta, and on top of the very rare feat of a Grand Tour double in the modern era. You can try for the anomoly angle, but I just can't see how the conditions could be so different as to spike his values so badly all of a sudden. He's always racing, it's generally hot, he's generally dehydrated etc - what on earth could have been so different about stage 17? 

 

Let me guess, he ate a racing pigeon pie? An inhaler exploded in the team car...

 

I'm out of here 

[Jehosefat]

he's tested all the time, the Salbutamol will be in all his tests, on a certain level... lets say 200 - 400mcg. Suddenly, in the middle of the Vuelta, after he's just had a rough day and lost time, he tests at a level double the maximum allowed and I'm guessing 5-10 times his usual amount.

Yes, let's speculate wildly as to his usual level. Those are the sort of high quality "facts" that are going to sort out this whole mess

[Escapee..]

Froome on Facebook

 

It’s sad seeing the misconceptions that are out there about athletes & salbutamol use. My hope is that this doesn’t prevent asthmatic athletes from using their inhalers in emergency situations for fear of being judged. It is not something to be ashamed of @asthmauk #asthma

[jcza]

Ahhhh Tony Martin - so quick to throw his toys - so bad at remembering rules.

 

Chris could carry on riding because salbutamol doesn't carry a mandatory suspension.

 

A sample finding and B sample testing happened behind closed doors because that's actually how it's supposed to happen. We only hear about A sample findings because UCI and testing facilities have more leaks than Zumas fire pool.

 

Not correct, there is no mention of salbutamol exemptions. After the adverse finding of the A sample the athlete must be suspended. 

 

Here is the procedure (http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/)

 

Adverse analytical finding

The LADS receive an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF, in other words, a prohibited substance was detected in a sample) from the CADF.

On the basis of an examination of a potential breach by the CADF, the LADS informs the rider, his or her National Federation, the NADO of his or her country and WADA of the advent of an abnormal result. If the substance discovered is "non-specified" (as opposed to "specified" substances – it is unlikely that the presence of "non-specified" substances can be explained by a credible reason not linked to doping), the rider is provisionally suspended (although this does not insinuate prior proof of guilt). The provisional suspension is reported on UCI’s website. The UCI Management is informed at the same time. Not only is it useful to make a provisional suspension public, but an appropriate communication in this situation contributes to the UCI’s transparency in the subject of anti-doping.

At this stage, the rider may request the LADS to order the opening of the B sample. If this confirms the AAF of the A sample, or if the rider dispenses with this option, the LADS request the rider to explain why the sample has returned an AAF.

PS: I added the bold italics 

[Andrew Steer]

Yes, let's speculate wildly as to his usual level. Those are the sort of high quality "facts" that are going to sort out this whole mess

Haha... arguing semantics. What average would suite your stance? 950mcg average for tests? 100's of them over the last 5 years of racing... suddenly, having never popped over 1000, he hits 2000. What oh what could possibly be so special about little old stage 17 of the Vuelta?

 

I look forward to this pearler defense from Sky... hope they're more creative than the other Grand Tour double winners defense team 

[Bateleur1]

Not correct, there is no mention of salbutamol exemptions. After the adverse finding of the A sample the athlete must be suspended. 

 

Here is the procedure (http://www.uci.ch/clean-sport/anti-doping/)

 

Adverse analytical finding

The LADS receive an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF, in other words, a prohibited substance was detected in a sample) from the CADF.

On the basis of an examination of a potential breach by the CADF, the LADS informs the rider, his or her National Federation, the NADO of his or her country and WADA of the advent of an abnormal result. If the substance discovered is "non-specified" (as opposed to "specified" substances – it is unlikely that the presence of "non-specified" substances can be explained by a credible reason not linked to doping), the rider is provisionally suspended (although this does not insinuate prior proof of guilt). The provisional suspension is reported on UCI’s website. The UCI Management is informed at the same time. Not only is it useful to make a provisional suspension public, but an appropriate communication in this situation contributes to the UCI’s transparency in the subject of anti-doping.

At this stage, the rider may request the LADS to order the opening of the B sample. If this confirms the AAF of the A sample, or if the rider dispenses with this option, the LADS request the rider to explain why the sample has returned an AAF.

PS: I added the bold italics 

 

Isn't the bold part in red where the problem lies?  It is not a prohibited substance as such from what I understand.  He just has a too high level of an unbanned substance?

[jcza]

Isn't the bold part in red where the problem lies?  It is not a prohibited substance as such from what I understand.  He just has a too high level of an unbanned substance?

 

Great question...........but exceeding the prescibed amount will result in a AAF

 

The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 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.

 

From WADA (https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-at-all-times/beta-2-agonists)

 

So the procedure is the same as for any other AAF 

[Patchelicious]

It’s actaully pretty sad how you lot spend more time trying antagonize, argue and prove each other wrong, rather than debating something on its merits.

 

If Froome cheated he must get what comes his way. But the way you lot carry on.....

[Bateleur1]

Haha... arguing semantics. What average would suite your stance? 950mcg average for tests? 100's of them over the last 5 years of racing... suddenly, having never popped over 1000, he hits 2000. What oh what could possibly be so special about little old stage 17 of the Vuelta?

 

I look forward to this pearler defense from Sky... hope they're more creative than the other Grand Tour double winners defense team 

 

Isn't Sky looking at having a go a three tours next year? Might have to load this up with Salbutamol and keep it ready in the team car ...