Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol

[Escapee..]

It is not on the banned list - it's on the not really controlled substance list.

 

I'd hazard a guess that because the performance enhancing effect has not been proven/disproven that it is better to have it on a list. I reckon the controlled substance list of the right one.

 

EPO/HGH/Testosterone etc are on the banned list - for good reason.

 

Fixed it for you

[Neverfit]

Nope - he will have an AAF every time he is over the acceptable level and need to prove how it happened. He was over the level once in his career - every other test was below the level. I think we can safely call that an anomaly.

 

I do think his testimony will force WADA to check their Salb test though. That is progress I suppose. Uli and Peta will have questions!

Agree with this being an anomaly on his side, but his defense will remain the same.

I test positive, you report the AAF, I mail you the previous tests documents and off we go. I am not saying he will do this. Just questioning the effectiveness of the limit/controls if they can be rendered useless. Sure all other athletes who did not have the SKY Dr reports on their side will want to know how they did this... some questions will be asked. Which is good. 

[Eldron]

Fixed it for you

 

In what way do you think it wasn't controlled?

[Escapee..]

In what way do you think it wasn't controlled?

 

There is a limit in place, CF went over the limit. No problem.

[Patchelicious]

There is a limit in place, CF went over the limit. No problem.

You asked “but why is it on the banned list”. It’s not banned, me and you could also use it, as could everybody else in the peloton.

 

Now you are talking about limits.

[Eldron]

There is a limit in place, CF went over the limit. No problem.

 

No problem? There was an AAF, Froome was notified, he spent a wad of cash on doctors, handed WADA a 1,500 page report, WADA reviewed said report and decided there was either a fault in the test or that conditions on that one day in Spain were such that Froome's urine had an abnormal amount of Salb in it. That is a little more than "no problem".

 

To be fair it sounds like you don't really know how the system works or what the difference between banned and controlled is. Perhaps some research on your side will answer your own questions?

[Gen]

You asked “but why is it on the banned list”. It’s not banned, me and you could also use it, as could everybody else in the peloton.

 

Now you are talking about limits.

The substance is controlled because oral, nubulized and intravenous methods are banned and there is also no way of telling how it was uses.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Patchelicious]

The substance is controlled because oral, nubulized and intravenous methods are banned and there is also no way of telling how it was uses.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Are telling me something, or are you answering Escapees question?

[Jase619]

No problem? There was an AAF, Froome was notified, he spent a wad of cash on doctors, handed WADA a 1,500 page report, WADA reviewed said report and decided there was either a fault in the test or that conditions on that one day in Spain were such that Froome's urine had an abnormal amount of Salb in it. That is a little more than "no problem".

 

To be fair it sounds like you don't really know how the system works or what the difference between banned and controlled is. Perhaps some research on your side will answer your own questions?

 

To be fair, I think he has done some research, but mainly on cyclingnews.com. . . . 

[Eldron]

I found this article quite interesting: http://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/

[Eldron]

To be fair, I think he has done some research, but mainly on cyclingnews.com. . . . 

 

Ahhh Cyclingnews - I see their lead story is still about an anti doping expert who said that he can't have an opinion until he sees the evidence but gives his opinion anyway.

[Pure Savage]

No problem? There was an AAF, Froome was notified, he spent a wad of cash on doctors, handed WADA a 1,500 page report, WADA reviewed said report and decided there was either a fault in the test or that conditions on that one day in Spain were such that Froome's urine had an abnormal amount of Salb in it. That is a little more than "no problem".

 

To be fair it sounds like you don't really know how the system works or what the difference between banned and controlled is. Perhaps some research on your side will answer your own questions?

 

Agreed, these random limits that are not really based on any science just some thumb sucks from a hand full of studies. There was obviously no way WADA was able to substantiate that the urine test was able to show that CF actually abused the substance. Not enough evidence proving the urine test is accurate in showing the intake of the substance. 

 

This is not a case of finding trace amounts of a banned drug. If any trace of a banned drug shows up in your system its 10000000 times more dodgy than an inaccurate test showing someone was apparently around 19% over a random limit.

[Eldron]

Agreed, these random limits that are not really based on any science just some thumb sucks from a hand full of studies. There was obviously no way WADA was able to substantiate that the urine test was able to show that CF actually abused the substance. Not enough evidence proving the urine test is accurate in showing the intake of the substance. 

 

This is not a case of finding trace amounts of a banned drug. If any trace of a banned drug shows up in your system its 10000000 times more dodgy than an inaccurate test showing someone was apparently around 19% over a random limit.

 

Says about the same in the article I tagged a few posts up.

 

I feel really bad for Uli and Peta - I reckon they would have skipped bans if they had pockets as deep as Sky or if they'd been bust now after a bunch of tests have been done on Salb.

 

In the article it quotes several riders who used WADA's "1600 in 24 hour" rule and had urine levels over the limit.

 

That said - I can't think of a better way to control Salb. Oral and injected salb seem to have some performance enhancing properties and it's is still not certain that that Froome didn't actually take oral salb. Bit if a mess really.

[Pure Savage]

Says about the same in the article I tagged a few posts up.

 

I feel really bad for Uli and Peta - I reckon they would have skipped bans if they had pockets as deep as Sky or if they'd been bust now after a bunch of tests have been done on Salb.

 

In the article it quotes several riders who used WADA's "1600 in 24 hour" rule and had urine levels over the limit.

 

That said - I can't think of a better way to control Salb. Oral and injected salb seem to have some performance enhancing properties and it's is still not certain that that Froome didn't actually take oral salb. Bit if a mess really.

Yeah, its a mare regarding the oral and injected versions. 

 

The only way one could do it is the UCI/WADA supplies Salbutenol enhalers, which have random trace elements. Then if you have it in your system you should also have the trace elements. 

 

This doesnt stop someone doing the illgal stuff on the side though. eish

[Christie]

The Froome procedure was not much different from Impey's Probenicid positive. Except Probenicid is on the banned list, which shpuld be worse than the controlled list. Impey used a letter from the pharmacist to clear himself - clearly there are ways to challenge findings, and successful challenges are not only limited to big money riders.

[Eldron]

Yeah, its a mare regarding the oral and injected versions.

 

The only way one could do it is the UCI/WADA supplies Salbutenol enhalers, which have random trace elements. Then if you have it in your system you should also have the trace elements.

 

This doesnt stop someone doing the illgal stuff on the side though. eish

On the upside - we're in "marginal gains" territory now which is better than a few years back!

 

Maybe Salb should go the Caffeine route and not have a limit. That said - I don't know what negative side effects there are...