Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol

[Fat Boab]

I posted an article where they interviewed someone from WADA there is some info in there.. you just need to translate it.

 

 

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/cyclisme/article/2017/12/14/affaire-froome-la-charge-de-la-preuve-revient-a-l-athlete_5229768_1616656.html?xtref=https://t.co/D0LV6MwjU0

 

The bit about the PK tests..translated of course.

 

How are these pharmacokinetic studies going?

 

It must be done under controlled conditions: in the presence of witnesses who make sure that the athlete takes the required amount of salbutamol, that he has no opportunity to add a catch, and especially of us ensure that the samples are collected in indisputable conditions and then sent to an anti-doping laboratory. Our procedures are strict.

 

The athlete tells us: "The day I was tested positive, that's how I took the offending substance, that's how much I took and when. " A urine sample is taken without taking the substance, to have the basic level of the athlete, especially when they are athletes who have chronic treatments. Then, the athlete takes salbutamol under the same conditions that he has described. Then we take at relatively precise hours.

 

The laboratory returns, in a report, on these analyzes which allow us to see exactly, for the dose which has been taken, at which urinary level of salbutamol we arrive. It is relatively difficult to distort this kind of analysis.

 

"WE DO NOT RELY ON ASSUMPTIONS. WE WANT FACTS "

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

Ta muchly. Analyte protocols observed, but experimental design, such as initial conditions, steady-state or otherwise, a 'little' more ill-defined. The thlot pickens.....

[Gen]

Ta muchly. Analyte protocols observed, but experimental design, such as initial conditions, steady-state or otherwise, a 'little' more ill-defined. The thlot pickens.....

Ja.. it's a very complicated matter.. Ulissi did the PK test the result could not explain the amount he was over.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[shaper]

Sir Bradley Wiggins' wife Cath calls Chris Froome a 'slithering reptile' after Team Sky rider returns adverse findings

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/201r-bradley-wiggins-wife-cath-calls-chris-froome-slithering/7/12/14/si

 

Gloves off 

[Eldron]

I'm guessing CF will take the max permissable dose then ride for 36 hours without drinking anything then pee well concentrated salbutamol. Or something a little smarter courtesy of SkyMedical.

[Eldron]

Sir Bradley Wiggins' wife Cath calls Chris Froome a 'slithering reptile' after Team Sky rider returns adverse findings

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/201r-bradley-wiggins-wife-cath-calls-chris-froome-slithering/7/12/14/si

 

Gloves off

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/bradley-wiggins-wife-apology-chris-froome-slithering-reptile-cycling-news-a8111591.html%3famp

 

Battle of the wives! You're not gonna take that crapola are you Mrs. Froome?

[JA-Q001]

I posted an article where they interviewed someone from WADA there is some info in there.. you just need to translate it.

 

 

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/cyclisme/article/2017/12/14/affaire-froome-la-charge-de-la-preuve-revient-a-l-athlete_5229768_1616656.html?xtref=https://t.co/D0LV6MwjU0

 

The bit about the PK tests..translated of course.

 

How are these pharmacokinetic studies going?

 

It must be done under controlled conditions: in the presence of witnesses who make sure that the athlete takes the required amount of salbutamol, that he has no opportunity to add a catch, and especially of us ensure that the samples are collected in indisputable conditions and then sent to an anti-doping laboratory. Our procedures are strict.

 

The athlete tells us: "The day I was tested positive, that's how I took the offending substance, that's how much I took and when. " A urine sample is taken without taking the substance, to have the basic level of the athlete, especially when they are athletes who have chronic treatments. Then, the athlete takes salbutamol under the same conditions that he has described. Then we take at relatively precise hours.

 

The laboratory returns, in a report, on these analyzes which allow us to see exactly, for the dose which has been taken, at which urinary level of salbutamol we arrive. It is relatively difficult to distort this kind of analysis.

 

"WE DO NOT RELY ON ASSUMPTIONS. WE WANT FACTS "

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

A good lawyer and doctor will poke so many holes in their testing protocol that they wont even know if they can trust if the sky is blue during a sunny day.

 

(no pun intended)

[Cav']

Tony Martin's not entertained by this fiasco:

 

He remains eligible to compete, something which fellow rider Tony Martin labelled a ‘scandal’. Martin, who rides for Katusha-Alpecin, wrote in a post on Facebook: “I’m totally angry. In the case of Christopher Froome, it is definitely a double standard. Other athletes are immediately suspended after a positive test. He and his team were given time by the UCI to explain themselves. I do not know of any similar cases in the recent past. This is a scandal, and he should at least not have been allowed to appear in the World Championships.

“For me and the public there is immediately the impression that there are agreements going on behind the scenes, agreements are being made and ways are being sought as to how to get out of this case. Do he and his team enjoy a special status? These actions lead to the serious anti-doping struggle that I and riders like Marcel Kittel are leading. We need a consistent and transparent approach by the UCI. What is going on here is inconsistent, not transparent, unprofessional and unfair.” 

[mazambaan]

Apologies if already posted - adds some detail:

 

http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/

['Dale]

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381/amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

Anti-doping expert interview ☝????

['Dale]

Sir Bradley Wiggins' wife Cath calls Chris Froome a 'slithering reptile' after Team Sky rider returns adverse findings

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/201r-bradley-wiggins-wife-cath-calls-chris-froome-slithering/7/12/14/si

 

Gloves off

Friday Fight Club material ????

[Tristand]

Seeing as it is Friday:

 

Suppose he was taking something else, something undeclared, that affected the clearance of the salbutamol. Inter-drug clearance issues are VERY common, even grapefruit does this. Just an idea.

 

[Gen]

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/news/anti-doping-expert-on-froome-it-doesnt-quite-add-up_453381/amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

Anti-doping expert interview [emoji1489]

Mmm... one would think if he had so many puffs on it that day that surely the cameras would've have picked it up?

 

Someone somewhere is watching that stage over and over to see if they can spot it..the cameras could have missed it because I am sure Contador went on one of his many escapades that day so cameras could've been more focused on him than Froome...given that it was Contador and the Vuelta.

 

Many question that they will have to answer and unfortunately they will have to answer them ...eventually . It could take a very very long time..he may retire before the case is settled [emoji6]

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Sandro]

Hmm

[Patchelicious]

[Velouria]

So, when Frank Schleck tested positive for Xipamide on stage 13 of the 2012 Tour de France, his team pulled him from the race. This was even before his B sample was tested.

 

Where am I going with this?

 

Good question. Xipamide is also a specified substance, not a prohibited substance. And yet he was pulled immediately. By his OWN team. It wasn't hushed up. It wasn't explained away. Frank didn't appear on TV shows pleading that people don't stigmatise sufferers of oedema and hypertension. He didn't compete in the World Champs. He didn't make a surprise announcement that he was going to be doing the Giro knowing he had this positive test hanging over his head.

 

"Of course I am disappointed by the verdict that has just been announced. I think that the decision to suspend me during one year is too severe considering the fact that the Council acknowledged that I unintentionally consumed a contaminated product. Unfortunately the provisions of the UCI are such that an involuntary contamination is sufficient in order to pronounce a punishment," Schleck said in a statement.

 

That's what I expect from all this.

 

Tony Martin is 100% correct.

[shaper]

Mmm... one would think if he had so many puffs on it that day that surely the cameras would've have picked it up?

 

Someone somewhere is watching that stage over and over to see if they can spot it..the cameras could have missed it because I am sure Contador went on one of his many escapades that day so cameras could've been more focused on him than Froome...given that it was Contador and the Vuelta.

 

Many question that they will have to answer and unfortunately they will have to answer them ...eventually . It could take a very very long time..he may retire before the case is settled [emoji6]

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Irrespective of whether the camera picked up every puff.... am sure he will say he took the maximum number of puffs allowed so that he will have had the max dose in him.  Am sure Sky and CF have watched the video footage and will be able to pin point exact times when the camera is not on him and add puffs if needed at those times.  

 

It does look like this is going to be a lengthy process.......