2,331 Replies to “Velominati Super Prestige”

1. @RobSandy

   Here’s the basis of the whole thing as I understand it……

   The WADA official limits are:

   >>>>

   • Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours;in divided doses not to exceed 800 micrograms over 12 hours starting from any dose;
   • Inhaled formoterol: maximum delivered dose of 54 micrograms over 24 hours;
   • Inhaled salmeterol: maximum 200 micrograms over 24 hours.

   The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and 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 a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above.

   <<<<<

   Now the problem comes in any permissible substance as to how to correlate what is injested with what is then detected in the blood/urine.  My understanding (based on looking at this a few years ago) is that the urine levels were set by extrapolating Salbutamol use by Joe Blogs in the street and then making an assessment of how that would correlate to an athlete under stress and then adding a fudge factor for “safety” resulting in a theoretical boundary figure.  The limit is for any sport under WADA regulations and (as I understand it) has never been correlated with actual usage by athletes under extreme stress and dehydration.  Net the whole subject of permissible substances within limits is always going to be questionable when the limit is set for what can be injested but detection is set by a different method which will vary according to hydration levels.

   So in the Froome case he may well be sure that he did not injest over the maximum allowed and so they will have challenged the correlation and theoretical nature of the detection test boundary.

   A simple analogy is to look at the colour of your pee when you are normally hydrated and compare that with what you produce when dehydrated.  There is a huge variation and that will also vary further individual to individual.

2. @Teocalli

   Bang on, and the problem is the rules/tests in this instance as it opens the possibility of an athlete who has not exceed the stated dose returning a test which is over the threshold, AND the possibility of an athlete who HAS exceeded the stated dose getting away with it.

   It seems a massive grey area, as with TUE’s.

   Incidentally, you can get a TUE for asthma medication if you need to exceed the 1600mg/24 hour limits.

   Steve Cummings had one, as did one of the Yate’s brothers. I’m sure no French riders are asthmatic though.

3. @Teocalli

   I generally don’t get my bib chamois in a wad over performance drug issues, I prefer to just enjoy watching the races.

   That said, I have a few comments, though not specific to Froome (not trying to crucify him, just a discussion).

   We (me and my science geek peers) put much less value on urine numbers than blood for the reasons you state.  Excretion rates, hydration, and metabolism are all varying factors.  However, I do think there is a reason why WADA has put an upper limit to some drugs, including salbutamol.  There is evidence that in higher concentrations it can enhance performance – maybe only a little, but, you know, “marginal gains” these days (yes, I’ve seen studies that show no benefits, too).  I don’t think the threshold number was selected from casual inspection of the data, or Joe Blog.  Typically, when it’s (any drug) considered an abuse level, it’s set WAY higher than what you would normally expect from therapeutic use.  As far as hydration and athletes, there are many real-world tests (including Froome’s history) that could give a good picture of what happens during intense effort and dehydration.  Not many results in pro cycling have been positive under these circumstances.

   If SKY’s position is the lack of correlation between dose and urine quant, they should have followed the rules and had Froome demonstrate that with testing.  Surely they could simulate stress conditions and put him in a partially dehydrated state before the testing begins so that his pee comes out looking like honey or a Belgian tripel.

   [BTW, I’m a chemist by education and training and have worked in an analytical lab for the last 24 years.  I have tested thousands of blood and urine samples for all kinds of drugs, testified many, many times in court to interpreted the findings.  I currently manage the toxicology/drug testing department.  That doesn’t make me an expert in salbutamol, but the chemistry (specifically pharmacokinetics) is similar to many other drugs I’ve studied. ]

4. @MangoDave

   @Teocalli

   I generally don’t get my bib chamois in a wad over performance drug issues, I prefer to just enjoy watching the races.

   That said, I have a few comments, though not specific to Froome (not trying to crucify him, just a discussion).

   We (me and my science geek peers) put much less value on urine numbers than blood for the reasons you state. Excretion rates, hydration, and metabolism are all varying factors. However, I do think there is a reason why WADA has put an upper limit to some drugs, including salbutamol. There is evidence that in higher concentrations it can enhance performance – maybe only a little, but, you know, “marginal gains” these days (yes, I’ve seen studies that show no benefits, too). I don’t think the threshold number was selected from casual inspection of the data, or Joe Blog. Typically, when it’s (any drug) considered an abuse level, it’s set WAY higher than what you would normally expect from therapeutic use. As far as hydration and athletes, there are many real-world tests (including Froome’s history) that could give a good picture of what happens during intense effort and dehydration. Not many results in pro cycling have been positive under these circumstances.

   If SKY’s position is the lack of correlation between dose and urine quant, they should have followed the rules and had Froome demonstrate that with testing. Surely they could simulate stress conditions and put him in a partially dehydrated state before the testing begins so that his pee comes out looking like honey or a Belgian tripel.

   [BTW, I’m a chemist by education and training and have worked in an analytical lab for the last 24 years. I have tested thousands of blood and urine samples for all kinds of drugs, testified many, many times in court to interpreted the findings. I currently manage the toxicology/drug testing department. That doesn’t make me an expert in salbutamol, but the chemistry (specifically pharmacokinetics) is similar to many other drugs I’ve studied. ]

   0

   Thanks for your informed opinion. I am not sure if you have seen this but I would be interested in your informed opinion:

   http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

   Thanks, as this is all Greek to me.

5. @Rick

   @MangoDave

   Thanks for your informed opinion. I am not sure if you have seen this but I would be interested in your informed opinion:

   http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

   Thanks, as this is all Greek to me.

   0

   I had not seen that article before you posted the link, thanks.  It starts by stating SKY won’t be releasing details of the defense argument, so that alone means it will be difficult to be an armchair judge.

   A couple of things from the article got my attention:

   They cite a possibility of 10% uncertainty in the lab measurements.  This is a valid point for most drugs and quant methods.  But then they added 20% (to 1200) above the cutoff for the ‘decision limit’.  I’m not sure why, exactly.

   According to The Times, the team argued that most scientific studies on the excretion of salbutamol have been done over a single day, not over nearly three weeks of intense competition, and they built a statistical model showing the chances of a false positive for someone who is regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently, as Froome was when leading the Vuelta from stage 3 to the finish.

   Just about any drug listed in the banned substances won’t be studied in ‘three weeks of intense competition’ for research.  It’s a statement that implies what, exactly?  In my opinion, you can’t throw statements like that out there without proof that it changes the meaning of the results.  Otherwise it’s just a red herring.  Also, It’s not a false positive – it’s really there, just more concentrated because of dehydration.

   Saying “..regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently..” means they have a history of what Froome’s levels were under similar racing conditions.  That’s probably the best info we can look at to address this point.  Were all of those other tests significantly different? We’ll probably never know, except for the fact that he hasn’t been flagged with an adverse finding with the other tests.

   I don’t really want to write a rambling dissertation, I hope my couple of points were clear enough.  There are some good articles that discuss this topic, much better than I’m prepared to put together now.

   As a related side note, a few years ago I read Floyd Landis’ book, where half of it tries to make the lawyer-ish defense about the lab results being invalid.  When I saw the detailed arguments, it looked to me like every other criminal defense attorney tactic to cloud the issue and confuse the jury.  I was not convinced at all that the lab test results were somehow screwed up.  That’s not exactly apples to apples to Froome’s case, but it does illustrate what types of arguments come up between the accuser and the accused.

6. The formatting changed when I posted the above. Note that the paragraph “According to The Times…” was copied as a direct quote from the cycling news article.

7. @MangoDave

   @Rick

   @MangoDave

   As a related side note, a few years ago I read Floyd Landis’ book, where half of it tries to make the lawyer-ish defense about the lab results being invalid. When I saw the detailed arguments, it looked to me like every other criminal defense attorney tactic to cloud the issue and confuse the jury. I was not convinced at all that the lab test results were somehow screwed up. That’s not exactly apples to apples to Froome’s case, but it does illustrate what types of arguments come up between the accuser and the accused.

   0

   I can see exactly what you’re saying and I’m frustrated that the evidence that exonerated Froome is not clear cut.

   For what it’s worth, I think Froome is telling the truth. I don’t think he overdosed on his inhaler and at this time I don’t think there is anything more suspicious going on. I’m just not convinced he/Sky have proved that, rather than just casting doubt on the whole testing process.

   It’s unsatisfactory for everyone. And I still don’t believe a word Brailsford says.

8. @MangoDave

   @Rick

   @MangoDave

   Thanks for your informed opinion. I am not sure if you have seen this but I would be interested in your informed opinion:

   http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/more-details-of-chris-froomes-successful-salbutamol-defence/

   Thanks, as this is all Greek to me.

   0

   I had not seen that article before you posted the link, thanks. It starts by stating SKY won’t be releasing details of the defense argument, so that alone means it will be difficult to be an armchair judge.

   A couple of things from the article got my attention:

   They cite a possibility of 10% uncertainty in the lab measurements. This is a valid point for most drugs and quant methods. But then they added 20% (to 1200) above the cutoff for the ‘decision limit’. I’m not sure why, exactly.

   According to The Times, the team argued that most scientific studies on the excretion of salbutamol have been done over a single day, not over nearly three weeks of intense competition, and they built a statistical model showing the chances of a false positive for someone who is regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently, as Froome was when leading the Vuelta from stage 3 to the finish.

   Just about any drug listed in the banned substances won’t be studied in ‘three weeks of intense competition’ for research. It’s a statement that implies what, exactly? In my opinion, you can’t throw statements like that out there without proof that it changes the meaning of the results. Otherwise it’s just a red herring. Also, It’s not a false positive – it’s really there, just more concentrated because of dehydration.

   Saying “..regularly using salbutamol and tested frequently..” means they have a history of what Froome’s levels were under similar racing conditions. That’s probably the best info we can look at to address this point. Were all of those other tests significantly different? We’ll probably never know, except for the fact that he hasn’t been flagged with an adverse finding with the other tests.

   I don’t really want to write a rambling dissertation, I hope my couple of points were clear enough. There are some good articles that discuss this topic, much better than I’m prepared to put together now.

   As a related side note, a few years ago I read Floyd Landis’ book, where half of it tries to make the lawyer-ish defense about the lab results being invalid. When I saw the detailed arguments, it looked to me like every other criminal defense attorney tactic to cloud the issue and confuse the jury. I was not convinced at all that the lab test results were somehow screwed up. That’s not exactly apples to apples to Froome’s case, but it does illustrate what types of arguments come up between the accuser and the accused.

   0

   Thanks for the input. Casting doubt on the process is always the last hope for the guilty.

9. Probably should throw this into the ring – doesn’t have any bearing on the Salbutomol case but it is fascinating and fairly unprecedented in terms of detail released.

   https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44694122

10. Completely missing VSP this year however I am heading in to Le Tour with relished having discovered this:

    https://www.velogames.com/tour-de-france/2018/teamroster.php?tid=6s44a34f8b55821d4a4c4dd53cde686438D

    Anyone else entering?

    What about a Velominati mini league?

11. @Deakus

    You do know we are running an unofficial VSP?  There is also a spot prize for each GT.  So even though you have missed most of the VSP season there is still the spot prize for the TdF and the Vuelta to play for.

     

12. Current VSP Picks for Giro Rosa and Tdf.  Plus a reminder of the spot prize for the TdF – with size scale in case you fear it may turn out to be an espresso cup (thinking of the R-P mini cobble!).

    Shout if I missed your picks while I was travelling back from Eroica Limburg.

    

    

13. Just found this on FB which seems to explain the science behind the limits and how the theory was flawed. I’m not a scientist and I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the reporting or content.

    

    

    To some extent I can also understand why the various players are unwilling to disclose any additional information about why the made the decisions they did. Presumably to do so would involve releasing Froome’s medical data which they probably can’t do as it was supposed to be a confidential process.

14. @Teocalli

    Perfect ill give it a go probably make my pics on Friday.  The Velogames is well worth a shot too, no prizes but you have to pick a virtual team and are limited in the amount you can spend on them.  Looks interesting never done it before.

15. Froome has released his medical data from the Giro today.

16. @Deakus 

    Long time reader, 3rd time poster…and anyone else interested…

    https://www.velogames.com/tour-de-france/2018/

     

    League Owner: Cycling Monk

    Owner Email: cycling.monk@yahoo.com
    League Name: The Velominati
    League Code: 273535115

17. TDF:

    Froome

    Porte

    Quintana

    Landa

    Nibali

     

    Giro di Rosa

    Van Vleuten

    Borghini

    Gaurnier

    Blaak

    Niewiadoma

18. TDF:

    Froome

    Porte

    Bardet

    A Yates

    Dumolin

19. TDF:

    Froome

    Porte

    Nibali

    Bardet

    Dumoulin

    Uran Uran

    Giro di Rosa

    van Vleuten

    Blaak

    Niewiadoma

    Vos

    D’Hoore

20. Not taking my posts

     

21. TdF

    1. Chris Froome

    2. Richie Porte

    3. Romain Bardet

    4. Vincenzo Nibali

    5. Rigoberto Uran

     

    GdR

    1. Van Vleuten

    2. Ashleigh Moolman Pasio

    3. Megan Guarnier

    4. Lucy Kennedy

    5. Elisa Longo Borghini

22. @freddy

    Well it took that one!  Just post a list – sometimes it does that if I cut and paste a list and it is OK if I close the window and reopen…….

23. @freddy

    TDF:

    Froome

    Porte

    Nibali

    Bardet

    Dumoulin

    Uran Uran

    Giro di Rosa

    van Vleuten

    Blaak

    Niewiadoma

    Vos

    D’Hoore

    0

    Got that but you have put 6 for TdF so I have dropped Uran and taken your first 5.

24. Tdf:

    1 – Nibali

    2 – Porte

    3 – Bardet

    4 – Froome

    5 – Uran

    GdR

    1 – Garner

    2 – Van Vlueuten

    3 – Moolman-Pasio

    4 – Niewiadoma

    5 – Borghini

25. Ah well, here goes the usual shite picks:

    Men

    Bardet (Yup, you read that right)

    Dumoulin

    Froome

    Porte

    Yates

    Ladies

    Van Vleuten

    Blaak

    Vos

    d”Hoore

    Guarnier

26. read GT’s comments this AM on the news.  “team leadership will be decided in the alps”.  horseshit, and more chess from Sky.  Sky plays chess great, but they suck at poker.

27. This is very cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIr0ACRmA8g

     

28. It is going to be an interesting three weeks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-icy-welcome-for-defending-champion-chris-froome/

29. @chuckp

    Tdf:

    1 – Nibali

    2 – Porte

    3 – Bardet

    4 – Froome

    5 – Uran

    GdR

    1 – Garner

    2 – Van Vlueuten

    3 – Moolman-Pasio

    4 – Niewiadoma

    5 – Borghini

    0

    That’s Guarnier … f*cking autospell/correct

30. I know at least 1 of you entered on the Velogames Tour contest website, but the powers that be just shut the site down. Looked like fun.

    So I’ll put this here

    TDF

    1-Landa

    2-Nibali

    3-Porte

    4-Uran

    5-Yates

31. @Rick

    It is going to be an interesting three weeks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-icy-welcome-for-defending-champion-chris-froome/

    0

    I do fear that some idiot will do something really stupid this year.

32. Current picks I have are…..

    

33. TdF

    Froome

    Bardet

    Uran

    Porte

    Qintana

    GR

    Blaak

    Van Vleuten

    Niewiadoma

    Guarnier

    Moolman-Pasio

34. @Teocalli

    @Rick

    It is going to be an interesting three weeks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-icy-welcome-for-defending-champion-chris-froome/

    0

    I do fear that some idiot will do something really stupid this year.

    0

    I honestly don’t know much much is a genuine issue with the French public (they’ve never liked him so probably some), and how much is Cycling News general hate campaign against him. Every article about the Tour, even the ones that have nothing to do with Froome, are a shit-flinging exercise by Patrick Fletcher. I find it quite hard to read them (but I do because I like being annoyed).

35. @RobSandy

    @Teocalli

    @Rick

    It is going to be an interesting three weeks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-icy-welcome-for-defending-champion-chris-froome/

    0

    I do fear that some idiot will do something really stupid this year.

    0

    I honestly don’t know much much is a genuine issue with the French public (they’ve never liked him so probably some), and how much is Cycling News general hate campaign against him. Every article about the Tour, even the ones that have nothing to do with Froome, are a shit-flinging exercise by Patrick Fletcher. I find it quite hard to read them (but I do because I like being annoyed).

    0

    Hell hath no fury like a sour grape.

36. @Teocalli

    @RobSandy

    @Teocalli

    @Rick

    It is going to be an interesting three weeks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-icy-welcome-for-defending-champion-chris-froome/

    0

    I do fear that some idiot will do something really stupid this year.

    0

    I honestly don’t know much much is a genuine issue with the French public (they’ve never liked him so probably some), and how much is Cycling News general hate campaign against him. Every article about the Tour, even the ones that have nothing to do with Froome, are a shit-flinging exercise by Patrick Fletcher. I find it quite hard to read them (but I do because I like being annoyed).

    0

    Hell hath no fury like a sour grape.

    0

    I’m still waiting for Cycling News’ apology to Froome for all the accusations and innuendo. If anything they’ve been more critical of him after he’s been cleared.

37. It’s as if the Right Hand and Left Hand at CW do not know each other when they also published this (though I did not see them push it to the same extent as the other innuendo they push).

    https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/fundamental-flaw-wadas-salbutamol-regulations-revealed-scientist-came-385142

38. @Teocalli

    It’s as if the Right Hand and Left Hand at CW do not know each other when they also published this (though I did not see them push it to the same extent as the other innuendo they push).

    https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/fundamental-flaw-wadas-salbutamol-regulations-revealed-scientist-came-385142

    0

    Cycling Weekly aren’t anywhere near as nasty about Froome as Cycling News are. I know Brailsford can’t stand the CN journalists, wont let them attend press conferences. So I think there’s more than just the story behind it.

39. Not sure whether this is a Rule #26 violation or rather adherence…

40. @KogaLover

    Sorry cannot upload pic from iphone. Next time!

41. @Teocalli

    @Rick

    It is going to be an interesting three weeks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-icy-welcome-for-defending-champion-chris-froome/

    0

    I do fear that some idiot will do something really stupid this year.

    0

    I fear the same but I hope the race ends without incident. I am cynical about the salbutamol case but I am ready to move on and enjoy the race. 

    Viva Le Tour!!!!

42. Happy to be back online.
    TdF picks:

    Froome
    Nibali
    Uran
    Dan Martin
    Mollema

    Thanks

43. @Rick

     

    I fear the same but I hope the race ends without incident. I am cynical about the salbutamol case but I am ready to move on and enjoy the race.

    Viva Le Tour!!!!

    0

    x2  Looking forward to a good race.

44. @Rick

    I fear the same but I hope the race ends without incident. I am cynical about the salbutamol case but I am ready to move on and enjoy the race.

    Viva Le Tour!!!!

    I’ve always been sceptical of Froome (and Sky in general), and I still am. With that said, this week’s Cycling Podcast [link] had a really good discussion of exactly what the anti-doping procedure is, what exactly is known in the specific salbutamol case, and what is purely speculation. I’m not one to jump to the Crane Fly’s defence, but both my VMH and I had to admit that most of the shit being flung has been based on some really iresponsible reporting in the mainstream press (and probably the cycling press, but I tend to avoid it personally).

45. @mulebeatsdrums

    @Rick

    I fear the same but I hope the race ends without incident. I am cynical about the salbutamol case but I am ready to move on and enjoy the race.

    Viva Le Tour!!!!

    I’ve always been sceptical of Froome (and Sky in general), and I still am. With that said, this week’s Cycling Podcast [link] had a really good discussion of exactly what the anti-doping procedure is, what exactly is known in the specific salbutamol case, and what is purely speculation. I’m not one to jump to the Crane Fly’s defence, but both my VMH and I had to admit that most of the shit being flung has been based on some really iresponsible reporting in the mainstream press (and probably the cycling press, but I tend to avoid it personally).

    0

    I agree about the media’s treatment of this case. However, when there are no facts released it is open season for speculation.

    It also seems to set the precedent that all adverse analytical findings for cyclists will be deemed negative because the studies were done on swimmers. How long before the dehydration defense is used for high levels of testosterone or some other naturally occurring body chemical?

     

     

     

46. Current picks, just time for any last ditch sign-ins up on the platform before they roll out…….

    

47. Whoa! Just saw footage of Froome’s crash yesterday. He as a lucky, lucky bugger. He just missed a concrete post by a baw hair. That could have ended his race and season in one go.

    Super cool to see Chavanel soaking up the well-deserved adulation of fans on his breakaway today. 18 Tours and this is likely his last. The bunch were never going to le him win, but he got a great ride in.

48. @wiscot

    Whoa! Just saw footage of Froome’s crash yesterday. He as a lucky, lucky bugger. He just missed a concrete post by a baw hair. That could have ended his race and season in one go.

    Super cool to see Chavanel soaking up the well-deserved adulation of fans on his breakaway today. 18 Tours and this is likely his last. The bunch were never going to le him win, but he got a great ride in.

    0

    Yeah, I loved watching Chavanel riding off on his own.

    Sky now find themselves in a very interesting position – I don’t doubt that Froome can get the 51 seconds back, and may take a chunk back on some of his rivals today. However, he wont regain any time on Geraint Thomas. Assuming GT can stick close to the other GC guys once the race hits the mountains, I don’t really see where Froome is going to get that time back off his team mate.

    Add in the day on the cobbles where I expect Geraint to do well and the other ITT…could G become Sky’s leader this year???

49. @KogaLover

    Not sure whether this is a Rule #26 violation or rather adherence…

    0

    

50. @KogaLover

    @KogaLover

    Not sure whether this is a Rule #26 violation or rather adherence…

    0

    

    0

    I hope it is fresh water and not salt.  I assume so from the proximity of the grass.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.