Doping

Wouldn't it be more of an issue if it was multiple samples rather than just one? Also because its Sky its going to be another which hunt either way.

Quite. Another fine mess.

Twice the normal dose, no performance enhancement.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02425500?no-access=true

But, that's 400ug, not the 2000 or whatever Froome has failed the test for.

Didn't he stick the knife in when Wiggo's TUEs were exposed? I wonder if the labs CCTV has any footage of a mod looking dude walking around some time in September... ;)

Are there any doctors in here?
Any pharmacologists?

Anyone want to talk clearance rates and half lifes?
Anyone want to talk about inflammatory responses and exercise?
Anyone?

Must be the end for both Sky & Brailsford? (Even if they do argue that there's a legitimate reason for the high reading).

Potential sponsors of cycling will be going nowhere near this sport for the foreseeable future.

Does anyone know how the high dosage he took was administered?

No. There's no provision for this in the rules.

It's an adverse analytic finding so it should be a ban and results scrubbed.

Hyperbole much?

Blogspot links >>>

that could get messy

That doesn't stop a ban and annulment of results being the punishment though. The AD guys can take intent and reduce the penalty but there's always going to be a penalty, unless the system is corrupted.

EDIT: Wrong, there is a get-out...

"will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above."

Well he says he uses inhalers so presumably they'd have stuck to them - they're easy to use and you can max out your dose on them so why use other methods. If he's a lifelong sufferer he'd have inhalers already.

Press release says inhaler

Also you need a TUE if you get it from any other method.

this is the perfect 'internet cycling forum' comment on the subject.

Should Salbutamol be on the banned list? I get that it’s similar to clenbuterol, which was abused previously... but with [reportedly] no performance enhancing ability (apart from mouse studies showing muscle growthat mega doses, which didn’t translate to humans).

Lethal dose of Salbutamol is effectively impossible to reach unless you consume kg instead of micrograms, so not really a dangerous drug - fails on D. No evidence to suggest it’s performance enhancing (apart from similar mouse models, as above) - so not PE. Hard to call it a PED.

This seems like a culture of lazy and risk averse regulation by the regulators. I’ll take a stab at why it’s on the list: it’s personally politically very risky for the regulators to take something off the list (and very rewarding to put something on) yet they don’t personally feel the pain created when additional items (guidelines etc) are added - because they don’t ride, they regulate. So they keep increasing the thickness of the rulebook.

And then something like this happens. Most people ignore the nuance, will forever brand Froome a cheat and move on. While the analyst that most recently reviewed Salbutamol for the list, including guidelines, decided not to stick their neck out and lives to push paper another day.

very risky for the regulators to take something off the list

Caffeine used to be banned over certain amounts in much the same way and it IS performance enhancing and athletes were banned for it so your argument kinda falls apart a bit.

I suppose Sky had to air it now, if he’d won SPOTY and then it came out... that’s tantamount to treason! Oh the shame! All those sofa-based sportspeople taken for fools! And we’d only just managed to pretend we liked him/know who he is

There's no nuance though - there's a specific limit for this drug which he broke. They could set a limit and a test for milk of magnesia if they wanted (in before someone tells me there already is one...), and it would have to be strictly adhered to.

You can claim as much as you like that it's not performance enhancing, that's not relevent in this case.

There's no nuance though

The nuance is covered in this post: https://www.lfgss.com/comments/14005585/

Isn’t one of the reasons salbutamol is restricted because it can be a masking agent?

Ok, so there could be an error in the test or the level they've chosen is wrong. Of these, only the error in the test is a source of nuance - the level they have to abide by is known (and the day an athlete needs a dose of a controlled substance is excess of what is allowed is the day he takes his numbers off).

Does the margin of error cover a result double over their limit ?

Not a facetious question, I've got no idea.

So begs the question, that must be one hell of a lot of puffs

@fizzy.bleach

I’m not arguing for Froome to be let off. Im arguing that the system is broken.

It feels like a never ending washing machine of doping violations that are then sensationalised by a media driven by click bait and amplified by forums trying to rationalise the madness. It’s a system with such a strong feedback loop that it feels impossible to analyse a discrete case without questioning the role of the previous case etc.

What are we doing wrong?

Isn't that clenbuterol? Commonly found in steaks and Alberto Contador?

Not sure if there's any similarity with Salbutamol.