Froome case: exceptional case or defeat of anti-doping?

How the British cyclist Chris Froome (Sky) could be laundered despite his control abnormal with salbutamol on the last Tour of Spain in September? His case has followed specific rules, but it may leave traces in the fight against doping.

– A CATASTROPHIC TEMPO –

"All that for that!" The director of the Tour de France Christian Prudhomme summarized Monday the general feeling. The decision of the International Cycling Union (UCI) fell nine months after the abnormal control of Chris Froome on the Tour of Spain, but only five days before the start of the Tour de France. The UCI announced the end of the prosecution in extremis, when we had just learned that the organizer of the event, ASO, wanted to prohibit the title holder to align with the big loop because of the procedure In progress. "It may seem odd," said UCI President David Lappartient, but he highlighted the complexity of the procedure – "it took a battery of experts to badyze the arguments" – and the Chris Froome's right to a fair procedure. "Between the moment" the runner "made his final conclusions on June 4 and the moment we made our decision on July 2", "the UCI did not hang out," he badured.

– SALBUTAMOL, A SPECIFIC PRODUCT –

This anti-asthmatic – the component of the ventoline – is not a prohibited product like the others. In competition, it is banned in general for its stimulating and anabolic effects, but allowed by inhalation until certain doses to cure asthma, common among cyclists. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) allows catches up to 800 mg every 12 hours or 1600 every 24 hours. But it is from a certain threshold in the urine sample, 1000 ng / ml – 1200 for a procedure to be opened – that she considers that it is no longer a normal presence. "It's not as simple as a steroid or as EPO," summarizes the Secretary General of the French Agency for the Fight against Doping (AFLD), Mathieu Teoran.

– AN EXCEPTION THAT INTERPOLES –

Why the quadruple winner of the Tour was cleared by the UCI, while he presented 2000 ng / ml of salbutamol, twice the authorized threshold, in his urine during the 18th stage of the Vuelta, the 7th September? "Froome's lawyers have attacked the rule itself," thinks an anti-doping expert, who does not want to be quoted. In other words, "they collected everything they found in the scientific literature to say that Froome could present this concentration while remaining in an authorized outlet," decrypts the same source with AFP.

Heat, dehydration , level of inflammation of the lungs, sudden increase in the intake of the product, interaction with other drugs or foods are all variables that can be put forward to explain how a product can evolve in the body, according to experts interviewed . "The AMA rule lacked scientific soundness.They found themselves facing an inextricable situation and had to surrender," added the expert who wants to remain anonymous. "It was necessary to take into account all the specific elements of the case", relativizes the scientific director of the AMA, Olivier Rabin. "This is not the first time we encounter this kind of situation," he badured AFP.

Problem, it benefits Chris Froome and the Sky team, already in the viewfinder for having flirted in the past with the limits, especially on the authorizations for therapeutic use (AUT) and corticosteroids. "This file is pbadionate (…) everyone thinks judge (…) everyone was waiting for a decision of guilt," said David Lappartient.

– CRUSH TO THE HORIZON –

The rule for salbutamol is it to review? "Obviously, the next will ask + why it was considered that Froome was a special case and not me +, everyone will rush into the breach" imagine a player in the fight against doping, who does not want to be quoted. A scenario for the moment swept by Olivier Rabin. "There is no reason to question the threshold, it was defined a very long time ago and since then we have done a number of studies (…) which confirmed that this threshold was adequate. ", he judges.