Doping #135 stanozolol

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 10:58 schreef TargaFlorio het volgende:
Ik ben geen arts maar falen van de nieren dat heeft toch ook fysieke gevolgen? Dat merk je toch wel?

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:01 schreef heywoodu het volgende:
Froome gezellig met ons aller Mo op het Laureus-lijstje.

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:01 schreef heywoodu het volgende:
Froome gezellig met ons aller Mo op het Laureus-lijstje.

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:13 schreef Columbiafan het volgende:

[..]

Laat Shiffrin dit maar winnen bij de vrouwen, of halen wintersporters het nooit in deze wedstrijd?

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:14 schreef Columbiafan het volgende:

[..]

Ook lekker dat Gatlin bij de nominaties voor comeback van het jaar staat.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:50 schreef Bugno het volgende:

[..]



En Barcelona eveneens bij de comeback van het jaar

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:19 schreef Frozen-assassin het volgende:
Maar gaan we straks bij iemand die betrapt wordt op epo ook maanden wachten tot degene een kutsmoes heeft bedacht

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:57 schreef Rellende_Rotscholier het volgende:

[..]

Nee, want EPO is sowieso verboden, ongeacht de aangetroffen hoeveelheid. Een voorlopige schorsing volgt dan direct. Salbutamol is in principe niet verboden, tenzij je over de limiet gaat. Maar dan krijg je dus de gelegenheid om te verklaren hoe dat komt. Daar zou alleen een deadline voor moeten zijn.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:58 schreef Frozen-assassin het volgende:

[..]

Zat gewoon wat in vlees

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:57 schreef Frozen-assassin het volgende:

[..]

Dat klopt wel. Wedstrijd tegen PSG.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:57 schreef Rellende_Rotscholier het volgende:
Salbutamol is in principe niet verboden, tenzij je over de limiet gaat.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 13:05 schreef Frozen-assassin het volgende:
Lappartient met een verklaring waarin hij gewoon letterlijk zegt dat Froome geld genoeg heeft om ervoor te zorgen dat er een ontlastende verklaring komt...

quote:

Hij heeft meer geld en kan zo meer experts meebrengen die zich in zijn voordeel zullen uitspreken. We kunnen de positieve test echter niet zomaar van tafel vegen. Het wordt belangrijk om de zaak zo snel mogelijk af te handelen en tegelijk de rechten van de renner te waarborgen

quote:

"Ik hoop dat er momenteel geen motortjes worden gebruikt"
De voorzitter van de UCI wees daarnaast ook op het feit dat de strijd tegen mechanische doping versterkt zal worden. "We gaan in de toekomst met röntgentechnologie werken."

"Ik hoop niet dat er momenteel motortjes in fietsen gebruikt worden, maar er zijn veel geruchten en sommigen klinken zeer realistisch. We moeten dan ook ingrijpen."

"Mocht mechanische doping wijdverspreid zijn, is dat een regelrechte ramp voor onze sport", sloot Lappartient af.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 15:40 schreef Koffieplanter het volgende:
https://www.ad.nl/offside(...)plots-ziek~aab191ce/

Lol.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 15:38 schreef Rellende_Rotscholier het volgende:
Ze zeggen inderdaad dat ze die tablet hebben gebruikt, maar eigenlijk kregen ze gewoon een tip van iemand, hebben ze het zadel van de fiets gehaald en kwamen er toen wat kabeltjes enzo tevoorschijn.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 11:01 schreef heywoodu het volgende:
Froome gezellig met ons aller Mo op het Laureus-lijstje.

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

More speculation...Let’s say Froome really was suffering from acute renal failure to some degree. What could cause it to reverse, restoring normal kidney function, and resulting in rapid excretion of the built-up levels of salbutamol in the blood? A lot of recent research suggests that EPO exerts both nephroprotective and nephorestorative effects. That is, in animal models in which acute renal failure is induced by temporary restriction of blood flow to the kidneys, giving EPO before, during or after the operation results in significant improvement (maybe not surprising, given that most EPO is synthesized in the kidney). There appear to be direct effects of EPO on the kidney, independent of increasing the hematocrit, and some studies have shown that EPO also acts on brain centers that regulate kidney function.

So in this scenario, Froome suffers from renal impairment, with salbutamol levels building up in his blood until he takes EPO. The EPO helps restore normal renal function, with the high serum levels of the drug becoming converted into high levels in the urine.

This is obviously highly speculative, and I wouldn’t take it too seriously just yet (the required EPO doses are quite high, and of course, the entire renal impairment scenario seems to be a fantasy), but now we have a potential way of explaining why Froome’s salbutamol level was so high on just one day, an explanation moreover that leads back to blood doping. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Froome, in attempting to provide an innocent explanation for his salbutamol positive, actually showed how it could be the result of a blood transfusion after all (for note that blood transfusions are often accompanied by EPO, in order to reverse the inhibition of reticulocyte synthesis)?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25682558
http://sci-hub.la/10.1080/10641963.2016.1246565
http://sci-hub.la/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2006.05.010
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27634442

But there’s another possibility in which one doesn’t have to postulate renal impairment from an unknown cause. As is the case with so many physiological relationships, EPO may have both beneficial and deleterious effects on the kidneys, depending on how much of it is present. So while this is again speculative, EPO might conceivably cause or at least exacerbate renal impairment. In this scenario, the problem would begin by taking EPO, leading to serum build-up of salbutamol levels. EPO, however, is mostly metabolized in the liver, so even with kidney function below normal, it would be cleared from the blood fairly quickly. At this point, kidney function would be restored.

This mechanism could conceivably explain not only Froome’s positive, but those of other riders like Ulissi and Petacchi. They took EPO, which caused a temporary renal impairment, resulting in an accumulation of salbutamol in the blood, and higher than normal urinary levels when kidney function recovered. Recovery would also be hastened at this point by the elevated hematocrit, which of course persists long after the EPO is metabolized.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29187371

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 15:58 schreef Rellende_Rotscholier het volgende:
Deze post in the clinic is echt heerlijk:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 22:09 schreef heywoodu het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

[ afbeelding ]

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 22:09 schreef heywoodu het volgende:
[ afbeelding ]

[ afbeelding ]

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 22:19 schreef Rellende_Rotscholier het volgende:

[..]

Ja, leuk, Steph maakt een foutje, allemaal even lachen jongens.

Het gaat natuurlijk om Hector Carretero en niet iedereen favoriete Panamees.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 22:19 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Nou, nee, niet 'allemaal even lachen jongens'. Ik ben niet bekend met ene Hector Carretero namelijk.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 22:21 schreef Rellende_Rotscholier het volgende:

[..]

Minder skeleton kijken en meer wielrennen.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 22:22 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Vooruit, ik zal in 2018 meer wielrennen dan skeleton kijken.

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 22:22 schreef heywoodu het volgende:

[..]

Vooruit, ik zal in 2018 meer wielrennen dan skeleton kijken.

quote:

Commentary: The simplest explanation for Froome’s salbutamol test
By Fred Dreier Published Jan. 17, 2018

Warning: The following column contains opinion and speculation about the Chris Froome/Salbutamol anti-doping case. There, you’ve been warned.

In case you missed it, French newspaper L’Equipe reported on Tuesday that Chris Froome and Sky are considering a legal defense that argues his adverse analytical finding for salbutamol was the result of kidney failure.

Yes, kidney failure.

Under this possible defense strategy, lawyers could argue that Froome’s kidneys malfunctioned during the Vuelta a España, retained the salbutamol, and then released it all at once, which is why his urine contained twice the allowable limit of the asthma drug.

Boy, that’s a helluva explanation.

It appears that the British team is prepared to take its anti-doping cases into the realm of what I refer to as the “head-slap zone.” That’s the realm in which the explanations are so unlikely and far-fetched that even casual cycling fans slap their heads in amazement. Yes, this is the realm of Tyler Hamilton’s chimeric vanishing twin, Lance Armstrong’s French conspiracy, Raimondas Rumsas’s “The steroids were for my mother-in-law,” Adrie van der Poel eating juiced pigeons, or Gilberto Simoni taking a cocaine cough drop from Peru. Simply reading those excuses in succession makes me want to slap my head.

There, I just slapped myself.

As a lover of all things cycling, I sincerely hope Froome and Sky back away from the kidney defense, if not for their reputations, then for the good of the sport. Cycling has already produced the lion’s share of slap-worthy doping explanations within the global realm of sports. In fact, no other sport is as synonymous with these excuses as cycling. So do we really need to add another one to the list?

You see, the purpose of these confusing and far-fetched defenses is to override the desire that we, the public, have to find the explanation that is most basic and simple. Yes, we are searching for Occam’s Razor. Chimeric twins and French conspiracies are not Occam’s Razor.

For those who are not familiar with the philosophic principle, here is a quick primer. When given multiple explanations as to why something occurred, the simplest, most basic answer is probably the correct one. The more complex answer — the one with more leap-of-faith assumptions — is likely incorrect.

Since day one of this mess, cyclists and cycling fans have asked me what is the Occam’s Razor for the Froome case. So over the past few weeks, I have posed the question to experts in the realm of medicine and sports science. Doctors, researchers, and so on. You have likely read about some of these experts on our site in recent weeks.

My questions: What’s the simplest explanation in the Froome case? What is Occam’s Razor here, given the facts of the case?

Those facts, as a reminder, are that Froome recorded twice the legal limit of salbutamol after stage 18 of the Vuelta. On the day prior to stage 18 and the day after, his salbutamol levels were fine. Froome is known to be asthmatic, and to take a Salbutamol inhaler. These inhalers are legal to use, and the volume of salbutamol they excrete is not known to regularly record a number that high.

To a person, these doctors and researchers have provided a similar answer to the Occam’s Razor question: Froome either took an oral dose of salbutamol, or he used a salbutamol nebulizer. Both methods are forbidden by WADA code.

Do these doctors know what happened? No—only Froome and his team know. Still, this Occam’s Razor is simple, and honestly, it does not make me want to slap myself. After all, it fits into a logical narrative that is also easy to fathom:

It was the final week of the 2017 Vuelta a España, and Chris Froome had a cold. And the cold inflamed his asthma. Note: many asthmatics (myself included) are familiar with this pattern. Even a basic head cold eventually ends up in our lungs, causing wheezing, tightness, and endless fits of phlegmy coughing.

Froome battled the coughs with his salbutamol inhaler. When a respiratory infection meets asthma, however, the coughing and wheezing can get bad. Using the puffer is akin to squirting a garden hose on a five-alarm fire.

Froome needed a firehose. And in this situation, the firehose was either a salbutamol tablet or a salbutamol nebulizer. Those are the methods that can deliver a big enough dose to douse the flames.

But there’s a problem: Oral salbutamol is banned, and nebulizers require a TUE. And the dose that both of these methods deliver is almost guaranteed to surpass the legal threshold.

Froome faced a tough choice. He could quit; he could continue, and risk his health, or he could gamble with the banned method.

The Occam’s Razor explanation is that Froome and Sky chose to gamble. Perhaps their calculus was that he could over-hydrate the next day and dilute his urine enough to avoid a positive test. Or that Sky’s political relationships within the sport would override what would surely be a minor infraction.

At first, the plan worked. Froome attacked on the stage 18 climb to Alto de Santo Toribo de Liébana, zipping away from Vincenzo Nibali. And then, the plan failed spectacularly. Froome’s pee sample recorded twice the legal limit for salbutamol.

Is this what actually occurred? It’s cycling, so we may never know.

Of course the Occam’s Razor here is comparatively tame when compared to the doping stories of old. Did Chris Froome cheat? I don’t know. He suffered from asthma, and perhaps took a dose of his medication that was above the legal limit. Did he visit a clandestine Spanish blood doping doctor? No. Did he orchestrate an elaborate team-wide doping program, and then get people to sign non-disclosure agreements and have his lawyers distribute “Lack of Credibility” documents when anyone talked? No. Did he blame grandma? No.

But cycling has rules, and athletes must live on one side of a black-and-white divide. So while the Occam’s Razor in the Froome situation presents an explanation we can understand, it also presents one that, according to the rules, is a violation.

The simplest explanation of the Froome case is perhaps not worthy of a head slap — just a head shake.

http://www.velonews.com/2(...)lbutamol-test_454985

quote:

Op woensdag 17 januari 2018 23:19 schreef TheArt het volgende:
Heel fijn stuk dit.

[..]