Chris Froome returns adverse analytical finding for Salbutamol

[Gen]

With all due respect you say many things.

I said WADA have no confidece in there procedures ..( report - that what we've seen pretty much says so much.)

 

I said deep pockets go a long way..

 

Athletes will use same defence to get themselves off the hook for other AAFs ( AAF isn't limited one drug).. go after the testing procedure ..

 

Micro dosing testing will get ripped apart. ..athletes will go after the procedure and not actually prove their innocence (if they are woking on how to test for micro dosing and micro dosing isn't limited to one drug)

 

 

Will we ever see the full report..

 

 

Anti doping is in trouble.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Patchelicious]

I said WADA have no confidece in there procedures ..( report - that what we've seen pretty much says so much.)

 

I said deep pockets go a long way..

 

Athletes will use same defence to get themselves off the hook for other AAFs ( AAF isn't limited one drug).. go after the testing procedure ..

 

Micro dosing testing will get ripped apart. ..athletes will go after the procedure and not actually prove their innocence (if they are woking on how to test for micro dosing and micro dosing isn't limited to one drug)

 

 

Will we ever see the full report..

 

 

Anti doping is in trouble.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

See the full report? We weren’t even supposed to see the investigation.

 

Why don’t we rather ask to see who else is being investigated? Or who else has already been investigated and found innocent?

[Patchelicious]

I said WADA have no confidece in there procedures ..( report - that what we've seen pretty much says so much.)

 

I said deep pockets go a long way..

 

Athletes will use same defence to get themselves off the hook for other AAFs ( AAF isn't limited one drug).. go after the testing procedure ..

 

Micro dosing testing will get ripped apart. ..athletes will go after the procedure and not actually prove their innocence (if they are woking on how to test for micro dosing and micro dosing isn't limited to one drug)

 

 

Will we ever see the full report..

 

 

Anti doping is in trouble.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I bet you a bazillion dollars that no matter what is in the “full report”, you won’t find it satisfactory.

[Eldron]

I said WADA have no confidece in there procedures ..( report - that what we've seen pretty much says so much.)

 

I said deep pockets go a long way..

 

Athletes will use same defence to get themselves off the hook for other AAFs ( AAF isn't limited one drug).. go after the testing procedure ..

 

Micro dosing testing will get ripped apart. ..athletes will go after the procedure and not actually prove their innocence (if they are woking on how to test for micro dosing and micro dosing isn't limited to one drug)

 

 

Will we ever see the full report..

 

 

Anti doping is in trouble.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

I don't know if it's that serious.

 

Controlled chemicals with allowable levels are open to all sorts of physiological variances and lab testing equipment & protocol questions.

 

Banned substances where just the presence is an issue are more binary.

 

I think the baby is safe without the bath water for now :-)

[Gen]

See the full report? We weren’t even supposed to see the investigation.

 

Why don’t we rather ask to see who else is being investigated? Or who else has already been investigated and found innocent?

Then ask them..demand it[emoji6]

 

We can't comment in things we don't know about.. maybe other riders tested positive for something or returned am AAF but went after the procedure and the same conclusion was made that the procedure is flawed..so therefore they aren't doping...right?

 

Cause if the procedure is flawed they can't be doping?

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Gen]

I don't know if it's that serious.

 

Controlled chemicals with allowable levels are open to all sorts of physiological variances and lab testing equipment & protocol questions.

 

Banned substances where just the presence is an issue are more binary.

 

I think the baby is safe without the bath water for now :-)

Lol.. we know how athlete will do anything to beat the system.[emoji6]

 

WADA have a mess to sort out...a big one.. you have flaws in your procedures then that is a major problem.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Eldron]

Lol.. we know how athlete will do anything to beat the system.[emoji6]

 

WADA have a mess to sort out...a big one.. you have flaws in your procedures then that is a major problem.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

So far it is just one procedure but yeah they'll need to do some homework on their procedures before deep pocketed teams starts questioning the rest of the tests!

[Gen]

So far it is just one procedure but yeah they'll need to do some homework on their procedures before deep pocketed teams starts questioning the rest of the tests!

That we know of.. but sounds like anything to do with urine samples could be flawed.i recall V12 saying that the excretion is not an exact science .

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Eldron]

That we know of.. but sounds like anything to do with urine samples could be flawed.i recall V12 saying that the excretion is not an exact science .

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Yup. Kidneys are tricky little devils!

[Gen]

Anyhow.. this case has been settled..

 

What may or may not happen is only speculation.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[eddy]

See the full report? We weren’t even supposed to see know about the investigation.

 

 

 

C'mon. Be precise.

[shaper]

Nothing to see here anymore.... time to move along.....

[Tristand]

I don't know if it's that serious.

 

Controlled chemicals with allowable levels are open to all sorts of physiological variances and lab testing equipment & protocol questions.

 

Banned substances where just the presence is an issue are more binary.

I think the baby is safe without the bath water for now :-)

 

There is no such thing as "presence" in testing, it always comes down a threshold at some point. That even goes for completely banned substances.

 

For example, taken from a WADA document:

 

The  finding  of  a  potential  doping  offence  with  nandrolone  is  based  on  the  detection  of  the  

two  major  metabolites  19-norandrosterone  (19-NA)  and  19-noretiocholanolone  (19-NE)  in  urine.  

Nandrolone has been on the banned list of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) since 1976. In

2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) set the threshold for 19-NA at 2 ng/mL for both males

and females. Modern analytical instruments are extremely sensitive and can detect traces of about 0.2

ng/mL 19-NA and 19-NE.

[SwissVan]

Nothing to see here anymore.... time to move along.....

Move it move it....

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VzSdPxlGGZc

[Eldron]

There is no such thing as "presence" in testing, it always comes down a threshold at some point. That even goes for completely banned substances.

 

For example, taken from a WADA document:

 

Sheet now I'm heading onto dodgy ground but....

 

Aren't those "allowable levels" based on the detection thresholds of the testing equipment (with a safety factor?). It's more a testing protocol than an allowable level like Salb?

[Tristand]

Sheet now I'm heading onto dodgy ground but....

 

Aren't those "allowable levels" based on the detection thresholds of the testing equipment (with a safety factor?). It's more a testing protocol than an allowable level like Salb?

 

Some banned substances are naturally occuring at very low levels, like HCG in males. Other compounds are detected through their metabolites rather than the parent compound and the metabolites may also be naturally occurring in very small quantities. This is precisely the case with nandrolone like in the provided example.

 

My point was rather that it always comes down to a threshold at some point and that the lines are not so neatly drawn.