Froome and Wiggins TUEs

[mjr]

The team, as ever, is doing itself no favours with its prevarication and obfuscation.

I wonder if they might be planning to do the defence lab test after the Giro, or possibly even during it if Froome's out of contention. Much has been written about the difficulty of replicating Grand Tour conditions... so they could use an actual Grand Tour.

 

[smutchin]

I wonder if they might be planning to do the defence lab test after the Giro, or possibly even during it if Froome's out of contention. Much has been written about the difficulty of replicating Grand Tour conditions... so they could use an actual Grand Tour.

Maybe, but Dr Bill suggests they would probably be better off avoiding a pharmokinetic study since it's extremely unlikely to give them the result they want, even if they can recreate the conditions accurately.

As @Crackle says, it looks like he's stuffed. All the team are doing at the moment is delaying the inevitable.

 

[mjr]

Well if that article is correct and it reads like it might be, he's stuffed and is never destined to win the Vuelta.

The main omission I see in the article is whether Froome's couple of years with bilharzia might have messed up his kidneys, which was mentioned earlier on some site called cyclechat.

To keep pushing against what seems to be the inevitable would seem to be completely stupid - unless they have something up their sleeves.

Their arms. Sorry. IGMC.

 

[Foghat]

Interesting article. I liked the 'hors categorie' jibe at the end.

The UCI's lawyers must be fairly confident on this case, given the groundwork already done on previous Salbutamol cases. And ASO's position and pronouncements will be a reasonably accurate barometer of both that and its own lawyers' confidence......the latest from ASO confirms my earlier deduction that Prudhomme now firmly sees Froome's Tour participation as a liability rather than an asset.....and sufficiently so to be able to take on the waning Sky/Murdoch procycling power in the legal arena.

 

[smutchin]

The UCI's lawyers must be fairly confident on this case, given the groundwork already done on previous Salbutamol cases.

What I found interesting about the Dr Bill piece is that it shows how the 1,000mg limit for therapeutic salbutamol isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it's based on rigorous lab testing with a generous allowance for extreme cases such as dehydration. They've clearly given the matter a lot of careful thought, and the Ulissi case shows that they won't just accept bullshit excuses.

The main omission I see in the article is whether Froome's couple of years with bilharzia might have messed up his kidneys, which was mentioned earlier on some site called cyclechat.

Well, that sounds like just the kind of bullshit excuse Sky might try on, but if that's the explanation, why is this the one and only occasion that he's been caught out by it? If he was only sightly over the limit, it might sound plausible, but it's double the limit.

 

[Foghat]

What I found interesting about the Dr Bill piece is that it shows how the 1,000mg limit for therapeutic salbutamol isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it's based on rigorous lab testing with a generous allowance for extreme cases such as dehydration. They've clearly given the matter a lot of careful thought, and the Ulissi case shows that they won't just accept bullshit excuses.

Good. Hopefully there'll be additional punishment for Sky for blemishing the image, reputation and interests of cycling and UCI through wilful delaying and obfuscation tactics, on top of the sanction for recklessly administering extra Salbutamol for the purpose of preserving a race lead.

 

[mjr]

What I found interesting about the Dr Bill piece is that it shows how the 1,000mg limit for therapeutic salbutamol isn't just some arbitrary figure plucked out of the air, it's based on rigorous lab testing with a generous allowance for extreme cases such as dehydration. They've clearly given the matter a lot of careful thought, and the Ulissi case shows that they won't just accept bullshit excuses.

Maybe I'm being dense, but I see reference to a 2016 study when I think the limit was set before that - and the study managed to produce cases that exceeded the limit slightly. How does it show the limit was based on "rigorous lab testing"?

Well, that sounds like just the kind of bullshit excuse Sky might try on, but if that's the explanation, why is this the one and only occasion that he's been caught out by it? If he was only sightly over the limit, it might sound plausible, but it's double the limit.

One problem if they did set limits from lab testing, even with an allowance, is it's quite likely that the lab results will be on some sort of distribution curve between zero as the lower bound and some physiological limit at the upper which may not be found among the lab test sample... and this occasion might be an outlier. I think it's improbable and attempting this defence would be high risk, but it's possible and I wouldn't rule it out. That's part of why the current salbutamol test sucks almost as much as the old hematocrit one - is the rule for athletes to limit their salbutamol intake methods and amount, or is the rule really not to pee too much of it? And if it's intake, why aren't they also using inhalers that record dispensing? But then they could be using non-recording inhalers to take extra... what a mess!

 

[Bollo]

As @Crackle says, it looks like he's stuffed. All the team are doing at the moment is delaying the inevitable.

And that’s what I just don’t get. It’s almost becoming an act of self harm in order to protect reputations that have long since disappeared down the shitter. I wonder if any of the people involved will ever come out and say “yeah, we should have just sucked up a 9 month ban, given the Vuelta back and returned without all the cleaner-than-thou PR bollocks”.

 

[Bollo]

That's put a rocket up his jacksie.................

........yeh I know; I got nothing else.....

Pity Like.

 

[smutchin]

Maybe I'm being dense, but I see reference to a 2016 study when I think the limit was set before that - and the study managed to produce cases that exceeded the limit slightly. How does it show the limit was based on "rigorous lab testing"?

OK, if the limit predates the test, maybe I've got that the wrong way round. But if what Dr Bill says is correct, the tests do seem to support the 1,000mg limit, and demonstrate that it can only be exceeded in extreme circumstances, and even then not by a huge amount (certainly not double) - and he suggests that it's extremely unlikely that anyone could exceed the limit by using an inhaler alone, you'd have to take a single massive dose, probably in pill form.

it's quite likely that the lab results will be on some sort of distribution curve between zero as the lower bound and some physiological limit at the upper which may not be found among the lab test sample... and this occasion might be an outlier

If that's Sky's defence, the onus should be on them to prove it.

 

[Foghat]

And that’s what I just don’t get. It’s almost becoming an act of self harm in order to protect reputations that have long since disappeared down the shitter. I wonder if any of the people involved will ever come out and say “yeah, we should have just sucked up a 9 month ban, given the Vuelta back and returned without all the cleaner-than-thou PR bollocks”.

Sky is likely not much longer for the world of procycling. They've proven to be far more concerned with exposure than reputation, in line with the unprincipled Murdoch ethos, which people should be in no doubt is providing top-down direction to Team Sky. Unfortunately this means Sky/Murdoch will continue to ream what it can out of the sport, regardless of the consequences for cycling, while it still can and until Disney pulls the plug.

 

[mjr]

OK, if the limit predates the test, maybe I've got that the wrong way round. But if what Dr Bill says is correct, the tests do seem to support the 1,000mg limit, and demonstrate that it can only be exceeded in extreme circumstances, and even then not by a huge amount (certainly not double) - and he suggests that it's extremely unlikely that anyone could exceed the limit by using an inhaler alone, you'd have to take a single massive dose, probably in pill form.

The study abstract says they tested thirteen healthy males inhaling... males is OK in this case, but both thirteen and healthy raise doubts for me about whether Froome might actually exceed the limit. Healthy test subjects would have had no asthma, presumably no history of bilharzia and they still managed to manufacture a couple of AAFs in such a small sample. It would also be interesting to know if these were endurance athletes and if they'd been exercising regularly in the weeks before the test.

If that's Sky's defence, the onus should be on them to prove it.

Oh, I agree. I just won't be as surprised as some of you if they do, at least on a balance of probabilities.

 

[Bollo]

Maybe I'm being dense, but I see reference to a 2016 study when I think the limit was set before that - and the study managed to produce cases that exceeded the limit slightly. How does it show the limit was based on "rigorous lab testing"?


One problem if they did set limits from lab testing, even with an allowance, is it's quite likely that the lab results will be on some sort of distribution curve between zero as the lower bound and some physiological limit at the upper which may not be found among the lab test sample... and this occasion might be an outlier. I think it's improbable and attempting this defence would be high risk, but it's possible and I wouldn't rule it out. That's part of why the current salbutamol test sucks almost as much as the old hematocrit one - is the rule for athletes to limit their salbutamol intake methods and amount, or is the rule really not to pee too much of it? And if it's intake, why aren't they also using inhalers that record dispensing? But then they could be using non-recording inhalers to take extra... what a mess!

I’ve wondered that about the limits as well. Unless I’m not understanding, the dose limit is defined in terms of a physiological measurement that’s extrapolated to a dose. Why not just cut out at least some of the uncertainty and define the pass/fail limit in terms of that measurement directly? It’s then the teams’ responsibility to ensure that the physiological measurement stays below the limit using whatever doses work for each rider.

 

[Foghat]

Are we certain that the delay can necessarily all be laid at Sky's door?

No, but whose claim to want a quick resolution is more believable? Punish for wilful obfuscation then, if UCI has unreasonably contributed to any delay.

Genuine question. In other words. Why is it taking so fecking long?

Because Sky knows its only hope is a long, complex drawn-out process that UCI cannot afford and runs out of money to prosecute (legal support/representation being extremely costly) or throws up a technicality Sky hasn't found yet that it hopes will get the case dismissed, as you've alluded to.

​

 

[Foghat]

I’ve wondered that about the limits as well. Unless I’m not understanding, the dose limit is defined in terms of a physiological measurement that’s extrapolated to a dose. Why not just cut out at least some of the uncertainty and define the pass/fail limit in terms of that measurement directly? It’s then the teams’ responsibility to ensure that the physiological measurement stays below the limit using whatever doses work for each rider.

Indeed - the dosing guidelines are merely general guidelines, not instructions, whereas the test limit is an absolute that Dr Apollo 11 has shown to be a reasonable one and which professional athletes/teams should be duty-bound to ensure they keep the right side of.....and if that means not dicking around with extra Salbutamol to preserve race leads, so be it.