2017 'PRO' cycling discussion.

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

bilwit
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

Hawkwood wrote:
bilwit wrote:
AJS914 wrote:I'm beginning to wonder if Froome was setup. It makes no sense to take dozens of puffs of an inhaler. It's not going to help more or make you faster. You can't imagine that he'd take the more potent pill form once during a race.

Or, the BB had the drug in it and it was a doping mistake.
There are anabolic properties if an extreme amount is taken like, let's say, over 100% of the UCI limit. Go ahead and google "salbutamol anabolic". There's also the possibility that it was used as a masking agent for something else as well. Not sure about what delivery system they actually chose but in any case, over 200% isn't a "woops, one too many puffs ha-ha-ha" mistake.
According to this book it only has an anabolic effect if its taken orally: Medical Toxicology of Drug Abuse: Synthesized Chemicals and Psychoactive Plants
By Donald G. Barceloux.
Like I said, if you google "salbutamol anabolic" there are plenty of papers that describe the PED aspect in detail. Yes there are others that also claim the other way but that's science--the consensus is the accepted fact, not outliers. The only a PED "if taken orally" argument is a stretch of truth -- oral administration only means that the same dosage is more potent, as nowhere near as much gets into the blood stream if inhaled. According to a paper hosted on WADA's own website, it's actually extremely difficult for urine to contain a high concentration if it was administered through an inhaler, as basically only as much that was directly swallowed is found:
Previous studies have demonstrated that after oral administration, the majority of salbutamol is found in the urine either as the parent compound (24-33%) or as conjugated sulfate metabolite (48%).On the contrary, no significant biotransformation occurs in the lungs, thus the percentage of salbutamol metabolite depends mainly on the percentage of the dose that is swallowed and absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract.
The urinary results confirmed that after inhalation the enantiomeric ratio between S(+) and R(-) of the non metabolized and of the metabolized salbutamol strongly depends on the percentage of the dose that is swallowed.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/ ... report.pdf

This means that either:
a) He knowingly inhaled an egregious amount well over the limit and happened to accidentally swallow most of it rather than exhale (we're talking several more canisters than allowed, not an extra puff or two)
b) Froome & Co. is lying and he definitely took it orally
Last edited by bilwit on Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

spud
Posts: 630
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:52 am

by spud

the sceptic in me is seeing redux of Floyd's Jack Daniels defense.

by Weenie


Hawkwood
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:27 pm

by Hawkwood

bilwit wrote:
Hawkwood wrote:
bilwit wrote:
AJS914 wrote:I'm beginning to wonder if Froome was setup. It makes no sense to take dozens of puffs of an inhaler. It's not going to help more or make you faster. You can't imagine that he'd take the more potent pill form once during a race.

Or, the BB had the drug in it and it was a doping mistake.
There are anabolic properties if an extreme amount is taken like, let's say, over 100% of the UCI limit. Go ahead and google "salbutamol anabolic". There's also the possibility that it was used as a masking agent for something else as well. Not sure about what delivery system they actually chose but in any case, over 200% isn't a "woops, one too many puffs ha-ha-ha" mistake.
According to this book it only has an anabolic effect if its taken orally: Medical Toxicology of Drug Abuse: Synthesized Chemicals and Psychoactive Plants
By Donald G. Barceloux.
Like I said, if you google "salbutamol anabolic" there are plenty of papers that describe the PED aspect in detail. Yes there are others that also claim the other way but that's science--the consensus is the accepted fact, not outliers. The only a PED "if taken orally" argument is a stretch of truth -- oral administration only means that the same dosage is more potent, as nowhere near as much gets into the blood stream if inhaled. According to a paper hosted on WADA's own website, it's actually extremely difficult for urine to contain a high concentration if it was administered through an inhaler, as basically only as much that was directly swallowed is found:
Previous studies have demonstrated that after oral administration, the majority of salbutamol is found in the urine either as the parent compound (24-33%) or as conjugated sulfate metabolite (48%).On the contrary, no significant biotransformation occurs in the lungs, thus the percentage of salbutamol metabolite depends mainly on the percentage of the dose that is swallowed and absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract.
The urinary results confirmed that after inhalation the enantiomeric ratio between S(+) and R(-) of the non metabolized and of the metabolized salbutamol strongly depends on the percentage of the dose that is swallowed.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/ ... report.pdf

This means that either:
a) He knowingly inhaled an egregious amount well over the limit and happened to accidentally swallow most of it rather than exhale (we're talking several more canisters than allowed, not an extra puff or two)
b) Froome & Co. is lying and he definitely took it orally
Why do you think I used the term `...taken orally' in my post above?!

bilwit
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

Hawkwood wrote:Why do you think I used the term `...taken orally' in my post above?!
I don't know which way you're arguing for but many people use this to say that Froome didn't cheat because it's "only a PED if taken orally" which, as I clarified, isn't the whole truth. The fact is that Froome's camp is trying to spin this as a "don't pick on asthmatics!"/"i might have taken extra puffs on accident" when it's scientifically incredibly difficult to have a urine concentration of it as off the charts as his was without either inhaling several more canisters than allowed to the point where it has the same effect of taking a lower dosage orally or just straight up taking it orally to begin with.

AJS914
Posts: 1895
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

That's why I'm saying there was some slip up. He wouldn't take an extremely large number of puffs of an inhaler. He wouldn't take it orally when he knows he's going to be tested every day. So, there was some slip up.

wingguy
Posts: 3666
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

bilwit wrote:According to a paper hosted on WADA's own website, it's actually extremely difficult for urine to contain a high concentration if it was administered through an inhaler, as basically only as much that was directly swallowed is found:
That's not what it says.

It says that the sulfated metabolite of salbutamol will not show up in high concentrations, not that salbutamol will not show up in high concentrations. They're talking about comparing ratios of two different compounds to see how the drug was taken. None of that information is publically available for Froome's test so you can't draw any conclusions.

That's why the paper "Salbutamol metabolism how to differentiate oral vs. inhaled administrations: Looking outside the box" exists. If differentiating between oral and inhaled administrations was as simple as having a test return a high concentration of salbutamol they wouldn't need to look outside the box. All the information needed would be neatly packaged inside the box.

beatle
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:08 pm

by beatle

Statistical significance is calculated using a relatively large sample size. On the other hand, it is becoming more accepted that individual biochemistry can have greater or lesser synergies with various chemicals. Hence, tailored medical regimens are the future and possibly the present for select moneyed individuals.

CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

My guess, is that he was taking the oral or perhaps even the injected version for the anabolic properties and knew that he had the TUE for the use of the inhaler as a scapegoat in case he messed up with the timing. I'd even argue that Team Sky, in their marginal gains wisdom thought, he's got the TUE, he's allowed to have it, let's get him as close as we possibly can to maxed out on the drug and then, due to dehydration, improper timing, etc... he was over... oops.
2016 Pactimo Brand Ambassador
http://www.Crankaddicts.cc
http://www.skratchlabs.com
2015 Specialized S-Works Allez
2015 Specialized Venge Pro
2014 Specialized S-Works Shiv TT

Nefarious86
Moderator
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Contact:

by Nefarious86

^^ This seems the most probable reasoning.


Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
Using Tapatalk

petepeterson
Posts: 1402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:58 am
Location: 604

by petepeterson

Been saying it here for yrs. getting july froome skinny is just not possible clean. rumour is lotto guys taking sleeping pills to fall asleep starving. pro cycling is just depressing sometimes.

mrlobber
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:36 am
Location: Where the permanent autumn is

by mrlobber

petepeterson wrote:rumour is lotto guys taking sleeping pills to fall asleep starving.
This technique was already used by Riis 20 years ago, at least, according to Hamilton's book.

User avatar
micky
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Vicenza
Contact:

by micky

CrankAddictsRich wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:37 am
My guess, is that he was taking the oral or perhaps even the injected version for the anabolic properties and knew that he had the TUE for the use of the inhaler as a scapegoat in case he messed up with the timing. I'd even argue that Team Sky, in their marginal gains wisdom thought, he's got the TUE, he's allowed to have it, let's get him as close as we possibly can to maxed out on the drug and then, due to dehydration, improper timing, etc... he was over... oops.
Already in Petacchi case there was a lot of talking that the only explanation could have been an injection for have such a high value.

maquisard
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: France

by maquisard

Both Froome and Wiggins weightloss, along with that of other members of team Sky was always slightly suspect.

The CIRC report pretty much mentioned Sky in all but name for pursuing this practice, why is anyone surprised?

User avatar
Kjetil
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:17 pm
Location: Hamar, Norway
Contact:

by Kjetil

^Except that Froome has no TUE because it's not necessary, you're quite possibly on the mark there, CAR.
Bianchi-Campagnolo

by Weenie


Hawkwood
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:27 pm

by Hawkwood

bilwit wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:29 pm
Hawkwood wrote:Why do you think I used the term `...taken orally' in my post above?!
I don't know which way you're arguing for but many people use this to say that Froome didn't cheat because it's "only a PED if taken orally" which, as I clarified, isn't the whole truth. The fact is that Froome's camp is trying to spin this as a "don't pick on asthmatics!"/"i might have taken extra puffs on accident" when it's scientifically incredibly difficult to have a urine concentration of it as off the charts as his was without either inhaling several more canisters than allowed to the point where it has the same effect of taking a lower dosage orally or just straight up taking it orally to begin with.
Not really arguing, my view is if you're astmatic and inhale it then fine, but if you inject or take it orally not fine.

Locked
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post