4-time Tour de France Winner Chris Froome Fails Drug Test

[SShore]

If you got evidence, bring it.

Sky apparently "demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol". That means that the level in the sample was possible using no more than the maximum dosage based on evidence Froome provided. Given that he had to prove it was beyond a reasonable doubt (since the burden of proof had switched to him at this point) -- I'd say that pretty damn impressive evidence and potentially -- some interesting science.

This decision was made by WADA -- a scientific body with no financial interest in cycling, not by the UCI. The same WADA that found against the Russian state resulting in massive sanction. I think that the Russian state has a bit more power and influence (to say nothing of money) than Sky could ever dream of.

Are Sky doping? Maybe. Probably. Are other teams in the peloton doping? Maybe. Probably.

Could they prove it in this case -- apparently not.

http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/new...-79358069&mc_cid=161c3d9960&mc_eid=25d97662dc

According to this expert, nothing was "proved" other than those with the resources to fight forever in court will win and those without will not. Sky makes their own rules and monetarily intimidates any and all that oppose them. Not that much different from Lance, except that Lance is entertaining and has a sense of humor.

 

[jmeb]

http://www.velonews.com/2018/07/new...-79358069&mc_cid=161c3d9960&mc_eid=25d97662dc

According to this expert, nothing was "proved" other than those with the resources to fight forever in court will win and those without will not. Sky makes their own rules and monetarily intimidates any and all that oppose them. Not that much different from Lance, except that Lance is entertaining and has a sense of humor.

haha. Ross Tucker. The same guy who put out "proof" in the form of calculations that Froome performance on Ax 3 Domains was inhuman and couldn't be done without doping.

Until Froome released his actual data and showed he was making totally within-human levels of power. That expert?

How do you propose Sky intimidated WADA? That somehow Sky has more influence there than the state of Russia?

As to Lance vs Froomes personalities -- that has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. I much prefer Froome's preference for letting his racing do the talking.

 

[Muleski]

Wasn’t this essentially a decision of UCI to no longer pursue it? Or was is WADA truly exonerating Froome? I have just read the headlines over the past week or so...been a bit busy. My impression has been that Team Sky made it clear that they would keep fighting and appealing, no matter what the cost.
At some point one side will often say “enough.”
My gut tells me that WADA is well run, etc. No doubt SKY presented a mountain of data for consideration. And perhaps it will change things for the better.
Back to my original question. UCI deciding to drop it {for whatever reason....including hoping for the entire grand tour season to not be a circus}, or WADA exonerating Froome?

Which is it? Thanks.

 

[SShore]

The intimidate them by having an unlimited budget to drag things through the courts for years. WADA doesn't have the resources to play that game and Sky knows it. When you know you can legally out spent your opponent, forcing them into submission, and are utterly lacking in ethics (read Brailsford and Sky), cheating not only becomes possible but quite attractive.

And I am not comparing Lance to Froome (I actually kind of like Froome), but Lance to Brailsford.

 

[jmeb]

Wasn’t this essentially a decision of UCI to no longer pursue it? Or was is WADA truly exonerating Froome?

No, this is not a UCI decision. This is UCI enacting a WADA finding. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case .

WADA informed UCI of their decision on June 28th. The ASO then made its statement about banning Froome from the Tour. UCI then announced they were dropping the case.

Here is UCI's statement (July 2): http://www.uci.org/pressreleases/uci-statement-anti-doping-proceedings-involving-christopher-froome/


Here's the meat of the WADA decision:
"
On the basis of this, WADA’s position is as follows:

1. Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
2. WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
3. In Mr. Froome’s case, WADA accepts that a CPKS would not have been practicable as it would not have been possible to adequately recreate the unique circumstances that preceded the 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
4. Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

• the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
• an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
• the sample may be considered not to be an AAF."

 

[jmeb]

The intimidate them by having an unlimited budget to drag things through the courts for years. WADA doesn't have the resources to play that game and Sky knows it. When you know you can legally out spent your opponent, forcing them into submission, and are utterly lacking in ethics (read Brailsford and Sky), cheating not only becomes possible but quite attractive.

And I am not comparing Lance to Froome (I actually kind of like Froome), but Lance to Brailsford.

Sorry, I don't buy that Sky/Bailsford have more clout to drag things through courts, intimidate people, and lack ethics on anything near the level of the Russian Federation. Who has been sanctioned by WADA multiple times.

 

[newfydog]

I can’t think of a person harder to intimidate or corrupt than my friend on the WADA board. I don’t know much about the rest of them, but my friend woud not stay if they were push-overs. I’m inclined to respect their work.

 

[Muleski]

I can’t think of a person harder to intimidate or corrupt than my friend on the WADA board. I don’t know much about the rest of them, but my friend woud not stay if they were push-overs. I’m inclined to respect their work.

That's 110% credible to me, coming from you!
Thanks, and thanks to the other informative posts about this situation.
Glad this one was resolved before the TdF.

 

[scott43]

Glad this one was resolved before the TdF.

I mean, right or wrong, at least it's done. There won't be a clown show during or after the Tour. He lives to fight another day.

 

[jmeb]

On thing this thread hasn't talked enough about is the how unfair it was that this whole AAF and case was leaked to the media. It dragged him through the mud, created a ton of controversy, over what should have been a private matter until it was final.

A Danish member of WADA gave an interview today where he talked about the reason Froome was found to be not guilty, and mentioned that there are approximately 15 similar cases salbutamol cases a year that don't ever reach the public eye: http://sport.tv2.dk/cykling/2018-07-03-flere-faktorer-foerte-til-froomes-frifindelse-siger-ekspert

 

[newfydog]

On a related, note, if any of you have not seen the movie "Icarus", don't miss it. Incredible story. There is a reason it won the Oscar. Stream it on Netflix.

 

[jmeb]

The scientist behind salbutamol studies says that the testing is flawed:

Paywall: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f
Summary: http://road.cc/content/news/244597-scientist-behind-wada-salbutamol-rules-sided-froome

Full Text (highlights by yours truly):
The sports scientist responsible for the salbutamol regulations that left Chris Froome fighting to save his reputation has admitted that the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) rules are flawed and need an overhaul because of the risk of false positives. Ken Fitch said that he had to support Froome’s case, which he did with a written submission, because he felt that the Wada threshold, based on his studies, was catching innocent athletes. Professor Fitch believes that Wada’s statement clearing Froome of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) from La Vuelta last year was “unprecedented”. Professor Fitch, who works for the University of Western Australia, told The Times: “The outcome of this is groundbreaking. It’s big not just for Chris but for asthmatic athletes and for the Wada rules. Most significantly, they have accepted that the salbutamol you take and the level in your urine do not necessarily correlate . . . They should have accepted it years ago.” Those Wada regulations, including a maximum dose of 1,600 mcg per 24 hours (16 puffs) and a decision limit for an AAF of 1,200 ng/ml urinary concentration were based on work that Fitch led in the 1990s. Fitch was a member of the IOC medical commission for 28 years and pushed it to carry out studies to distinguish between oral and inhaled salbutamol. “I’ll admit I made a terrible blunder,” he said. “The sport with the highest prevalence was swimming so that’s who we tested. But what happens after an hour of swimming? A full bladder. Cycling for five hours is completely different, you have little but quite concentrated urine. And a major error with our studies was that we did not measure the urine for specific gravity. “From those studies came the threshold, which Wada increased to the 1,200 decision limit, but it was based on a false premise. The studies were never performed with the aim of finding the amount of salbutamol in urine after inhaling the allowable quantity. As I had a major role in these decisions, I acknowledge my error . . . I feel quite concerned about cases like Chris Froome. “If I had wanted to clarify the salbutamol levels of athletes in urine after taking the permitted dose, I would have done multiple studies, administering different doses and collecting urine over a period of time, not just once an hour later. A number have been carried out . . . but they have shown the problem that the metabolism and excretion of salbutamol is capricious.” Fitch, who served on Wada committees, has opposed Wada in cases, including that of Alessandro Petacchi, the Italian sprinter who served a one-year ban after a high salbutamol reading at the Giro d’Italia in 2007. Wada did not allow urine concentration to be corrected for specific gravity, ie dehydration, but changed the rules in the past year. “I was arguing [for that correction] in 2007. Petacchi was innocent . . . They [Wada] have to accept that the rules need changing,” Fitch said. Dr Olivier Rabin, the agency’s director of science, has argued that “the rules are right” but said that the details of the Froome case would be sent to Wada’s listing committee for assessment.

 

[Primoz]

If someone thinks getting case closed just day or two after ASO decided to ban Froome from this year's TdF, and after almost year of nothing, is coincidence, then it's fine with me. But reasons for getting case dropped are insane... mildly said. Based on what Dr. Rabin said, Froome was sick in days before test not feeling good and having lung infection (next to kidney failure that Froome and Sky put out few months ago), so we can all be lucky, that this poor guy is still alive when he has so much medical problems.
But while I certainly agree it's perfectly possible for Froome to be sick, and it's impossible to reproduce lung infection and also mimic all the physical efforts required from an athlete during Vuelta (Rabin's words), so you can't really prove again test results from Vuelta, I still think it's hard to buy that, especially considering Froome's results on those "sick days". Can someone buy you have lung infection and having results like this:
Stage 14 (mountain stage)
1. Majka 4:42:10
2. Lopez +0:27
3. Nibali +0:31
4. Froome +0:31
Stage 15 (mountain stage)
1. Lopez 3:34:51
2. Zakarin +:0:36
3. Kelderman +0:45
4. Chaves +0:47
5. Froome +0:47
Stage 16 (ITT)
1. Froome 47:00
2. Kelderman +0:29
3. Nibali +0:57
I mean sure he could really be pretty sick, and if we believe that would be true, then it's pretty hard to imagine how dominant healthy Froome would be. I mean not dominant of winning race, which he obviously can easily do being sick, but dominant like from other planet dominant winning every single stage by minutes.

 

[François Pugh]

Sure you can be super-dominant when sick.....if you take the right medicine. Ben Johnson should be given back his sprinting medal; he was taking medicine for a leg injury.

I do not think it fair at all that someone with asthma should be allowed to take ANY performance enhancing medicine that people without asthma are not allowed to take.

 

[jmeb]

If someone thinks getting case closed just day or two after ASO decided to ban Froome from this year's TdF

Your timeline is wrong. WADA informed the UCI that they had cleared Froome prior to any ASO decision. There is no way UCI could go against WADA's decision. Evidence from the Giro (the only GT since the Vuelta) was included in Froome's defense -- so yeah, it took a while.

Of course, none of this timing matters at all if no one leaks Froome's now-exonerated AAF. These cases are private matters until the finding after an athlete makes their defense. WADA officials have gone on record saying there are around 15 similar salbutamol cases a year like this, but none of them reach the public eye.

We literally have the scientist who did the research that established the WADAs salbutamol regulations saying those regulations are bunk and that they are not well designed for cyclists. He has been fighting this for years apparently. If that is not enough to convince people that -- in this instance -- Froome was likely not doping using salbutamol, then those people are going to believe what they want in light of whatever facts come out. You can't prove someone isn't doping.

 

[Primoz]

@jmeb based on all this, I don't really think WADA cleared Froome, but just decided not to go to CAS against UCI's decission to drop the case. And this decission came after it came out, ASO won't allow Froome on start list. I admit English is not my native language, but as far as I read this https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...ppeal-uci-decision-in-christopher-froome-case Froome and Sky were handling this case with UCI and not with WADA (which in fact is quite normal, as sport federation is responsible for sanctioning, and WADA really doesn't have much to do with sanctioning athletes regardless of anything, which also means it doesn't really matter if WADA board is corrupt or not ).

After being notified of the presumed AAF in September, Mr. Froome provided the UCI with explanations, supported by expert opinions, in order to attempt to explain that the concentration of Salbutamol found in his sample resulted...

WADA’s decision follows a full and careful review of all explanations and supporting evidence submitted by Mr. Froome in the month of June (which the UCI shared with WADA)

 

[jmeb]

@Primoz -- respectfully disagree with this rendering.

WADA had the documentation and the decision they made to say this wasn't an AAF was made before the UCI dropped the case.

"On 28 June 2018, WADA informed the UCI that it would accept, based on the specific facts of the case, that Mr Froome’s sample results do not constitute an AAF. In light of WADA’s unparalleled access to information and authorship of the salbutamol regime, the UCI has decided, based on WADA’s position, to close the proceedings against Mr Froome."

From the UCI's July 2nd press release.

And WADA's position which doesn't "clear" him in the sense of saying he didn't do it (impossible to prove the negative), but does say that his sample is within range of maximum allowed dosage and that this is not an AAF.
"

1. Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:

• the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
• an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
• the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.""

 

[Ron]

interesting interviews with Froome this AM on the TDF. full interview tonight 8 EST (check your listings).

 

[Primoz]

Your timeline is wrong. WADA informed the UCI that they had cleared Froome prior to any ASO decision. There is no way UCI could go against WADA's decision.

It looks like my timing was quite right afterall, and sooner or later it will also prove UCI's decision to drop the case was solely based on ASO's decision to prevent Froome on start and had nothing to do with normal anti-doping procedures. Obviously WADA had nothing to do with clearing Froome, and it was solely UCI's decision and WADA just accepted that BS, which makes really dangerous precedence for pretty much every single future doping offense. Simply, from now on, it's on sport federation/WADA side to prove you were really doping, once your doping tests returns positive, and not on athletes side to prove his innocence once he returns positive doping test. And if nothing else works, you just tell you can't make CPKS under same conditions which were during time they caught you on doping, which is pretty normal claim as it's even theoretically impossible to have exactly same amount of stress (physical and mental) as during certain competition several months ago. And with that all bad things go away and you are cleared, which basically renders every single anti-doping attempt completely useless. With accepting this BS, WADA pretty much made opean season and renders itself completely useless and irrelevant for future. So maybe we are finally there now, where some already suggested should be right thing to do... have open sport and everyone does and puts in his/her body whatever he/she wants. Time to seat back and enjoy some crazy world records real soon
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

 

[jmeb]

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/n...-regarding-uci-decision-on-christopher-froome

I think whatever our biases are, you can read them into statements in this link. For instance.

"Therefore, while the specific details of the Froome case are unique, the result the UCI arrived at is not unusual. "

-- that is, 20% of salbutamol cases are acquitted. Froome is one of them.

"However, based on what was provided by UCI to WADA, and once Mr. Froome’s explanations were assessed by the appropriate internal and external experts, it became clear to WADA that, in particular, the combination of his within-subject variability for salbutamol excretion, the sudden and significant increase in salbutamol dosage prior to the doping control, and the number of consecutive doping controls meant that the analytical result could not be considered inconsistent with the ingestion of a permissible dose of inhaled salbutamol."

-- i.e. WADA made a decision based on evidence provided to it that this was within subject variability.

"When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case."

-- this is the exact timeline I laid out. WADA made its position statement before the UCI announced its decision to close the case. And the WADA statement occurred prior to the ASO ban.

As for the CPKS. I can't think of many sporting events in the world the similarly stress the body like a three-week grand tour of cycling. None in fact. So I don't think this has the implication you are suggesting that makes CPKS able to be claimed as impossible to replicate that you are suggesting.

It is clear that we are both reading our biases into these. I understand that is unavoidable. We can have all the inter-agency UCI-WADA, sky/froome conspiracies we want. But it remains that a) this is not an unusual outcome for salbutamol-only cases, b) the scientist who developed the test says they don't work well for cyclists and c) the UCI and WADA have both cleared mr Froome.

Based on that I'm done with this thread.