You are reading a single comment by @gbj_tester and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
wouldnt we see a much much higher false positive rate if the limit was so easily exceeded
It's not technically a false positive, I don't think anybody is contesting the analytical result. The Froome case is that the adverse analytical finding (AAF) can't be the result of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), because he didn't commit an ADRV. The probability of exceeding 1000ng/ml off permitted therapeutic doses might be quite low, in which case we would rarely see salbutamol AAFs as long as people were not committing ADRVs. Froome just has to convince the jury that the probability of an AAF of twice the threshold is far enough above zero that they are not comfortably satisfied that the AAF must be the result of an ADRV.
gbj_tester
Hmm. Ok all that well may be true but would the uci not take into account this variability when they set the limit for that particular specified substance in the first place? Possibly not, and it may need reevaluating. However does anybody actually have a figure on the number of pro peloton athletes who have asthma/use inhalers? I’m likely wrong but I have it in my mind it’s quite high, and given that a lot of these inhaler users will be be in a similar physical state to froome, And between the entire peleton get tested so often wouldnt we see a much much higher false positive rate if the limit was so easily exceeded by physiological and QC variability than the 3 or so in the past 4-5 years?