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
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.
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.
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
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