Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: Tour de France 2018

  1. #31
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ambleside
    Posts
    5,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeze View Post
    The sports scientist who provided the data to WADA on salbutamol levels in urine has come 'clean' and admitted his error.
    Simply put, the analysis of human urine salbutamol levels relative to inhaled dose was performed on one class of sportspeople attracting great interest at the time....swimmers.
    Urine samples were obtained after training when a known inhaled dose had been taken to correlate the amount in urine that is expected so that 'overdosing' cold be detected. Of course, after 5 hours of hard swimming, the urine was pretty voluminous and dilute.
    This does not equate to the urine of a cyclist after 5 hours of hard cycling when the urine will be concentrated and therefore, comparing volume for volume, will contain increased proportions of excreted substances. This explains the 'high' levels of salbutamol in Froomes urine. It was just highly concentrated.
    The base data was wrong. Therefore no case.
    Any link to the sports scientist's mea culpa? Numerous studies have shown that at maximum inhaled doses of salbutamol a small but significant number of subjects exceed the current cut off level.

    And what about those who were sanctioned in the past?

  2. #32

  3. #33
    Master ba-ba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Special K-Town
    Posts
    1,775
    That makes some sense.
    But as mentioned, what about those who have been done before.
    Also surely this would be common across all cyclists using salbutemol so you would expect more to be getting busted!
    Nic Barber. Downhill Dandy

  4. #34
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeze View Post
    The sports scientist who provided the data to WADA on salbutamol levels in urine has come 'clean' and admitted his error..........The base data was wrong. Therefore no case.
    Very interesting. Of course I don't expect that will cut much ice with the lynch mob on here. Froome is guilty, they just know so and don't need to bother with tiresome things like evidence and due process.

  5. #35
    Master Travs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    NE Lakes/Coventry
    Posts
    5,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post
    Very interesting. Of course I don't expect that will cut much ice with the lynch mob on here. Froome is guilty, they just know so and don't need to bother with tiresome things like evidence and due process.
    I know very little about cycling and to tell the truth, have little interest.

    But, as an outsider looking in, at a sport which appears to be riddled with abuse, doping and cheating... if the Sky team claim to be whiter than white, which they obviously aren't to some (greater or lesser) extent, then they are opening themselves up to scrutiny, criticism, and "lynch-mobs".

  6. #36
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Travs View Post
    I know very little about cycling and to tell the truth, have little interest.

    But, as an outsider looking in, at a sport which appears to be riddled with abuse, doping and cheating... if the Sky team claim to be whiter than white, which they obviously aren't to some (greater or lesser) extent, then they are opening themselves up to scrutiny, criticism, and "lynch-mobs".
    I agree with some of what you say. I just disagree with tarring everybody with the same brush and automatically branding somebody guilty before they have had the opportunity to defend themselves. I've no idea whether this clears Froome conclusively. But for some people no amount of evidence would be sufficient for Froome to clear his name. He is subject to trial by social media.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Leeds. Capital of Gods Own.
    Posts
    11,176
    Your partially right Muddy.
    But the sky handling of the Wiggins episode leaves serious unanswered questions.
    A certain yank protested his innocence and claimed to have never failed a drug test.
    A Spaniard claimed it was the steak.
    The summariseor on the channel i watch is a confessed drug cheat.

    Its now guilty until proven innocent in cycling. Sad but true.

    PS if the press hadn't kept digging the yank would have got away with it.

  8. #38
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Over Haddon
    Posts
    2,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeze View Post
    The sports scientist who provided the data to WADA on salbutamol levels in urine has come 'clean' and admitted his error.
    Simply put, the analysis of human urine salbutamol levels relative to inhaled dose was performed on one class of sportspeople attracting great interest at the time....swimmers.
    Urine samples were obtained after training when a known inhaled dose had been taken to correlate the amount in urine that is expected so that 'overdosing' cold be detected. Of course, after 5 hours of hard swimming, the urine was pretty voluminous and dilute.
    This does not equate to the urine of a cyclist after 5 hours of hard cycling when the urine will be concentrated and therefore, comparing volume for volume, will contain increased proportions of excreted substances. This explains the 'high' levels of salbutamol in Froomes urine. It was just highly concentrated.
    The base data was wrong. Therefore no case.
    So we are to believe that after many months of investigation and no doubt many thousands of pounds/euros spent it all comes down to one sports scientist who compared a cyclist urine sample with that of a number of swimmers?
    Pull the other one.

  9. #39
    Master Wheeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Monmouth
    Posts
    7,389
    The actual context is WADA needed a way to find out how much salbutamol was being taken. The idea was to test for the amount secreted in urine and correlate that to inhaled dose. This was several years ago and swimmers were under scrutiny at the time because of some amazing performances. So swimmers were chosen for the analysis. The lead scientist, Ken Fitch, now admits he failed to take the specific gravity of urine into account when presenting the data to WADA - who generalized the swimmers results to ALL sportspeople. Here is a quote from a recent article.

    Fitch has been pressing WADA to change its rules for years. This is not the first time he has opposed WADA in a case. He did so in the case of Alessandro Petacchi, who produced an abnormal reading of Salbutamol in a sample at the 2007 Giro d’Italia. The sprinter ended up serving a one-year ban. Fitch still believes Petacchi to be innocent.
    Simon Blease
    Monmouth

  10. #40
    Master ba-ba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Special K-Town
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by ba-ba View Post
    Also surely this would be common across all cyclists using salbutemol so you would expect more to be getting busted!
    Having listened to the most recent Cycling Podcast episode, it appears that 56% of people who get an AAF for salbutemol don't have a case brought against them, so Froome is just about in the minority. What the total number is I don't know, so maybe the test does yield increased AAF hits in non-swimmers.
    They seem to cover it fairly even handedly, even going into how much of a david WADA really is against sporting goliaths. There's also an interesting chat with Jonathan Vaugters (ex US postal in the Armstrong days, now head of Slipstream/Education first team) on all matters doping, dope testing etc. then vs. now. Well worth a listen https://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcas...two-episode-23
    Nic Barber. Downhill Dandy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •