Chris Froome urine test reveals twice the legal amount of Salbutamol; Nibali on Froome salbutamol case: No one can give me back the thrill of winning the Vuelta; Vuelta a España expresses ‘extreme caution’ about Froome situation; The Secret Pro: My thoughts on Froome’s positive and the bikes we ride; Tucker analyses Froome case; INRNG on what comes next for Froome; Podcast: Chris Froome’s positive; Ewan confirmed for Tour de France debut in 2018; Stig Broeckx pushes through rehab; Aqua Blue reveals 2018 kit
Froome’s salbutamol case, The Secret Pro’s reaction: Daily News Digest
The blogger INRNG has also analysed the Chris Froome news, looking at what happens next in his bid to try to avoid a suspension.
Here’s an excerpt:
Anything in excess of 1000 ng/mL “is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance”: a positive test. Then it is up to the rider in a pharmacokinetic (PK) study to prove – prove – that they took less than the maximum permitted dose and that this dosage still generated the high score. A PK test sees Froome administered permitted doses of salbutamol and his urine samples analysed to measure the quantity excreted.
This aspect of proof is interesting. Loyal readers might remember the case of Diego Ulissi who was suspended following the 2014 Giro d’Italia. I’ll confess to a reflex thought of “dodgy Lampre rider” but luckily justice is not based on the first thoughts of bloggers and reading more about the topic some studies suggest an athlete can take a fixed quantity of salbutamol only for their urine tests to contain fluctuating quantities
See the full analysis here.