Doping

The Hutch on Twitter pointed out that Wiggins took something performance-enhancing legally while Froome has taken something that isn't illegally

That sums it up nicely.

This graph suggests it is perfectly feasible for Froome to be totally innocent doesn't it? I'm reading it right arn't I?

Here, a study has a shown that a dose similar to what Froome claims to have taken resulted in a urinary concentration well in excess of both the general limit and the concentration presented by Froome.

I suspect I could draw that graph blindfolded now.

I think Ulissi claimed something similar and tried to recreate it in a lab to prove it but was unable to.

I've also heard the CAS considered the limit a very arbitrary one for something that from an inhaler has no performance enhancing effects.

This is a crapfest.

Where have I said that? My take on this, fwiw, is that Froome has a right to due process. His sample has triggered as AAF, he should be given the opportunity to present his case as to why that happened. If that satisfies the panel then he’s cleared, if not he should be banned, probably for 9 months as Ulissi was.

The limit as set does appear to be arbitrary and not based on the latest science available, so it does seem possible that Froome stayed within the allowed dosage yet still exceeded the limit. I think it’s only fair he is given the opportunity to prove that.

Not sure how keen he’d be to ride the equivalent of a grand tour to demonstrate how his body processes a medicine under those conditions.

Recreating the conditions may be difficult.

Read the VeloNews article I linked to above, I don’t think he needs to record the same numbers, just demonstrate that the dose he took can record a concentration above the 1000 limit.

Tl;dr

Welcome to internets knee jerk responses to doping rules.

How long does he have to prove it? Could he still ride the giro/other prep races under a cloud of suspicion? Will Tony Martin shake his fist at him in the peloton?

Tony Martin got it completely wrong though, there's no special treatment, it isn't a positive yet until Froome has argued his case and presented evidence and a decision has been made, hence why he wasn't immediately suspended.

VN: So what are your takeaway observations about this case?
DTB: It’s so difficult to say actually. It doesn’t quite add up that a few extra doses have caused it to go that high in the urine. The number of times he’s been tested, and a number of days he might have used is quite high, so for one to go above that threshold is odd. It’s quite a change from the normal pattern. It’s not impossible, but quite a difficult one to see how he can fully explain that away.

For me this is the crux. I think he'll get a ban.

How long does he have to present his evidence? Apologies if this has been stated before, can't see it anywhere.

It’s not often you see a German not knowing the rules...

If anyone hasn't read it already. Read this INRNG article:
http://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/#more-32655

Key points:

Another test took 32 athletes, administered permitted doses, made them exercise until dehydration and 20 exceeded the limit.

And this chart, the red line is the UCI limit:

Each arrow is "3 inhalations of Ventolin"

This research is from the Swiss anti-doping research laboratory and shows spikes in salbutamol levels following administration of a therapeutic dosage.

The main thing to remember is that this is a test of concentration in urine, if you're dehydrated that concentration is going to be much higher, and as the graph shows it isn't the case of inhaling X amount of X amount then showing up in your urine.

If only there was some kind of chart that explained it all

And this chart, the red line is Froome's reading:

The red line is the WADA limit - Froome's reading was 2000

It's getting cinelli now

Thanks, edited.

I don't know, but it can take months apparently. This is going to stretch on well into next season and then bam he could be banned.

Do love Tony, but he may have wanted to check facts before he went off like he did.

I don’t think he needs to record the same numbers, just demonstrate that the dose he took can record a concentration above the 1000 limit.

So if he can record a concentration of 1001 he's off the hook?

Froome must be fairly confident of clearing his name, otherwise he'd be better admitting inadvertent human error, accept losing the Vuelta title and negotiating a 6 month ban backdated to the date of the test so he can defend the tour in exchange for not using his millions to fuck the UCI/WADA with massive legal fees and a protracted stain on cycling's collective reputation.

At least if he admits to one puff too many at the wrong time it would highlight the precariousness of the limits as they are and people would see him as being more honest than the 'phantom twin/uncastrated boar/tainted steak' brigade and feel sorry for him... Any lab results he produces in his defence might also just serve to bolster people's belief that Sky get preferential treatment too even if it's only because they have the cash to throw at that kind of thing.

Despite my trolling of this thread, I think the main stream media coverage has been incredibly unfair and has misrepresented the facts.

I see that the majority of posters here still haven't read the INRNG article.

Fake news?