Doping

Yes the trigger.
I just don't understand how the trigger can be half what his sample contained and it's a grey area. Seems like poor regulation

Ah ok I found an article that he accepted negligence, but wouldn't he have to if the test couldn't replicate the sample.

I'm still lost as to how this can be seen in any way as a good thing for Froome's case?

I just don't understand how the trigger can be half what his sample contained and it's a grey area

How is this hard to understand? He needs to explain why his sample was any number over 1000, it doesn't matter if it's 1001 or 10000. If he can't satisfy the anti-doping authority that his number was consistent with permitted doses, his adverse analytical finding turns into an anti-doping rule violation. It might seem like an imperfect regulation, but it's what we have because the knowledge of pharmacokinetics is also imperfect - when you're trying to measure how much somebody took by how much they excrete, you're in a grey area because the relation between the two is only known at a population level, not for any particular individual.

It is perfectly possible that after the Wiggins debacle, Sky made certain that all their medical records were accurate and up to date.

Either that, or they saw that dicey records got them off the hook last time ;)

You're probably right, though it's probably also true that anything dicey they're doing isn't going to be in the records / those records are altered to account for it

He needs to explain why his sample was any number over 1000, it doesn't matter if it's 1001 or 10000.

I think the point that @GoatandTricycle is making though is that Froome isn't trying to explain away an extra 0.1%, he had double the permitted amount in his piss.

Easier to explain away a smaller excess surely but yeah, same punishment if he can't.

And actually, would it be the same punishment? The anti-doping authority wouldn't alter the sanction based on the amount of excess?

Philippa York on this:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/dec/14/chris-froome-team-sky-drug-test

It wasn’t like now when you read that high percentages of elite cyclists have exercise-induced asthma. Although I’m not medically trained, I’d suggest there might be an explication for this.

When you make a massive effort your lungs often tighten up so you would often be coughing at the back end of a race. I thought it was a normal reaction of the body to limit the damage being done, maybe even a weakness which emerged after time. Apparently it’s neither nowadays.

So exercise-induced asthma was probably widespread, but once the medical staff realised that riders could be treated for it now they will tell a rider who suffers that you can manage those symptoms and there isn’t the decrease in performance there would be before. It’s maybe not quite performance enhancement, but it certainly removes a restriction or decrease that otherwise may have occurred. A grey area indeed.

I enjoyed the 'explication' bit, possibly a result of speaking a lot of French? :)

If he goes through this process of trying to replicate under lab conditions, is any number over 1000 good enough, or does he need to replicate the exact results from the test?

On a separate note, I enjoyed Cath Wiggins contribution. Tony Martin’s take (despite being wrong on the facts) also suggests that Froome isn’t too well liked in the peloton.

What did Cath Wiggins say?

Called Froome a 'slithering reptile'

Exactly.

If he can recreate it fair enough but I'm skeptical that it will be possible.

And actually, would it be the same punishment?

Yes, in the sense that once an ADRV is determined, quantity is not a mitigating factor. Contador was banned over a vanishing small concentration of clenbuterol.

I think he means the inverse.
I.e is the penalty increased if it's considered an excessive infringement

If he goes through this process of trying to replicate under lab conditions, is any number over 1000 good enough, or does he need to replicate the exact results from the test?

I expect he will bring expert witness testimony in the field of pharmacokinetics to explain that 1200ng/ml in lab conditions is essentially the same as 2000ng/ml on race day, given the natural variability of physiological processes. It will be for the jury to decide whether they believe that. At the very least, he can add to the already existing evidence that 1000ng/ml can be exceeded by using permitted doses, and throw further doubt over the validity of the threshold.

is the penalty increased if it's considered an excessive infringement

Again, no. Quantity revealed by any particular test is not an aggravating factor either.

That doesn't seem like a convincing argument. However true it may be.

That doesn't seem like a convincing argument.

It's not you he has to convince :)

While the Swiss study was technically doping (900μg in a 12h period, compared with the WADA limit of 800μg), it showed two things which are relevant, first a high of over 3000ng/ml in urine, and second the extreme sensitivity of urinary concentration to time. Taken together, they make determining the total dose taken from a single urine test look more like a coin toss than actual science.

1 Attachment

Given what you say about time, are A and B samples gathered at the same time or is there a time gap?

One sample is taken, then split between two bottles and labelled A and B.

It’s maybe not quite performance enhancement, but it certainly removes a restriction or decrease that otherwise may have occurred. A grey area indeed.

Definitely a grey area in terms of sporting ethics, but then so are all TUEs, whether individual or the global one for salbutamol. On the other hand, the regulation turns it into a hard black and white boundary. As long as the regulation is what it is, you'd have to be a particularly aggressive Corinthian to refuse treatment on ethical grounds.

VeloNews have a good interview here, very factual and balanced;

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

Of course but if it's a jury they won't be specialists. I think you make valid point.

However, I haven't seen much that suggests the prosecuting side will struggle. Given the failure of other defence teams.
The elephant in the room is why haven't you tested positive before and why haven't there been more of these breaches if it's a coin toss.

It seems he has to prove himself innocent having given a adverse sample, that's far harder.

Andy - your take on Wiggins is that he had no case to answer, as he was within the letter (if not the spirit) of the rules. Now your position on Froome is that he is within the spirit of the rules. Is this a case of having your cake and eating it?

I don't know about Andy but I haven't a clue what position to take on this. The Hutch on Twitter pointed out that Wiggins took something performance-enhancing legally while Froome has taken something that isn't illegally. This really doesn't make any sense.

Of course but if it's a jury they won't be specialists

The jury in this case is likely to be CAS, so three expert arbitrators with knowledge of anti-doping regulation.

Ok thanks for clarifying, so is your position that he is likely to be exonerated?