Doping

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.

he said that Salbutamol has NO inherent performance benefit, it merely allows an asthmathic to perfom to his/her inherent ability just like a non asthma sufferer, no more no less.

This is true, as far as we know, for the permitted doses and routes of administration. It is not true for larger oral doses. There is a threshold for salbutamol not because it might be a masking agent, but because high doses are known to have anabolic effects.

my father said that Salbutomol has a notoriously poor level of uptake on inhaled delivery, as low as 30%, which is far lower than many other drugs. As such, 70% can be passed out in the urine at any given moment, hence his arguement that blood-tests should be used rather than urine tests to show how much is actually being absorbed in the blood as opposed to simply washed through

Either his father doesn't know what he's taking about, or he didn't properly understand what his father told him.

Inhaled salbutamol tends to end up in one of three places; the target receptors in the lungs (this is where the 30% (±10) comes into it), deposited in the mouth and swallowed, or exhaled. The exhaled portion obviously can't have any effect, it's just wasted. The portion which is on target is eventually transported via the blood stream to the kidneys and pissed out, as is the swallowed portion which is absorbed through the gut. While it's in transit in the bloodstream, it can have systemic effects which are either unwanted drug side effects or desired performance enhancing effects, depending on who's asking. Inhalation of small doses (100μg nominal per puff) is chosen for therapeutic use because it minimises side effects, and for exactly the same reason it's a pretty useless way to try to get performance enhancing effects. When I was a boy, before metered does inhalers were ubiquitous, we used to take 4mg tablets and live with the side effects. Anybody trying to get measurable performance enhancement from salbutamol will be taking 2-4 of those every day for weeks or months at a time.

Given the number of races and riders surely lots do? I’d imagine most of the top ten? Obviously not all in the same a state of dehydration.

Anybody trying to get measurable performance enhancement from salbutamol will be taking 2-4 of those every day for weeks or months at a time.

So therefore it would have shown up in his previous tests if he was trying to get performance enhancement and not just in one anomalous test...

Has this been resolved yet??

Someone's old man said it was all kosher so its BAU. FACT.

Phew! I was worried it wouldn’t be resolved by the tour.

That Wiggins chap though, GUILTY. I don't need to post evidence because my old man told me it was FACT. In capitals. He actually spoke in capitals. He only does this when he's really sure of something. Which makes it irrefutably and quite possibly true.

More importantly, What’s his Dads verdict on that 45 y/o bloke!?

"Chris has not had a positive test, rather an adverse analytical finding for a prescribed asthma medication”
Now we are just splitting hairs.

Thankfull for all the riders out there that I know who have never had “adverse analytical findings"

Is it splitting hairs? Some substances and methods are banned outright, like EPO and blood transfusions, and some substances can be used, but there is a limit set.

I don’t see how that can be controversial, nor is it splitting hairs if you make that distinction. If Froome was taking a banned substance, he’d have been sanctioned. But ( as far as we know) he’s not and his urine has shown levels of Salbutamol above the permitted value. He has the opportunity now to explain why this is the case. If the UCI anti-doping aren’t satisfied with his explanation then they can sanction him.

How do you know? I thought a big sticking point here is that none of us should even know this.
Do the UCI publish numbers for adverse analytical findings where there was no further sanction?

But so far as I understand it, Froome’s AAF was leaked and therefore a breach of both confidentiality and due process.

Because there seems to be at lest some evidence to suggest that it is possible to return an AAF for Salbutamol without exceeding the legal dose, because due process dictates that these cases are conducted in private, and because riders have a right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, we have no idea how many other riders have been cleared of similar AAFs.

Is there any known reason why the froome case is taking too long? Is there anything that prevents it from dragging on to the TdF 2019?

Here's a staunch defence of Froome from the man who pumped him full of salbutamol!!!1! Some defence!!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/21/team-sky-coach-defence-chris-froome-tour-de-france

Why is it taking too long? Samuel Sanchez tested positive before Froome, for a banned substance, and hasn’t been sanctioned yet. André Cardoso was positive for EPO before the Tour last year and still hasn’t been sanctioned.

These cases take time. With Froome we have no idea how long cases like his take, because usually it’s not in the public domain, as the athlete has the right to explain why they exceeded the limit of a specified substance before any doping sanction is even considered.

Although I firmly believe Froome should still be racing as he's entitled too, detractors will point out that the two riders you mentioned have not ridden since the positives were announced.

What interests me is how many similar cases to Froome's are live right now but just haven't been leaked. Some anecdotal accounts say it's quite common.

that's that then...

https://www.strava.com/athletes/461616/posts/2370132

Movistar's Jaime Roson popped on biopassport.

B sample!

commuter's obsessed with having a pro-cyclist's physique

That's me... just can't help myself.

At one point, of the first team squad of say 20 at the amateur (Level 7) rugby team I played for, 7 were openly/obviously taking steroids. This was as much/more to be 'massive' and desirable to women as improve performance. Tbh a fair % the blokes on any given high street are juiced up

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/24/why-there-are-more-gym-supplements-in-a-london-fatberg-than-cocaine-and-mdma

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/banned-cyclist-andrew-hastings-admits-doping-sas-dares-wins-298525

"When you win your family, friends and teammates give you praise. It’s a great feeling."

Except you've not really won, your victory is empty, hollow, cheating nonsense. Prick.