Why is Froome allowed to ride the Tour?

A year ago Team Sky’s Chris Froome tested positive for excess salbutamol. We look at the facts that have allowed him to keep racing

What’s going on with Froome?

The first thing to establish is that Chris Froome has now been cleared of any wrongdoing. Just five days before the start of the Tour de France, the UCI (cycling’s governing body) and WADA (World Anti-doping Agency) agreed his failed test ‘may be considered not to be an AAF [adverse analytical finding]’. That ruling is the end of a very complex case.

One day before this ruling, Tour organiser ASO claimed it could damage the race if Froome took part while under investigation, and told Team Sky he wasn’t welcome at the event until the issue was resolved. When the UCI ruled the following day that Froome had broken no rules, the ASO had to reverse its decision.

If Froome failed a drugs test, why was he allowed to race while being investigated?

Salbutamol is not considered in the same way as, say, EPO or steroids. It’s classed as a ‘specified substance’ by WADA. A positive test (or AAF) for a specified substance doesn’t carry a mandatory provisional suspension, only an optional one. The UCI chose not to impose one on Froome, leaving him free to race.

Why didn’t Team Sky suspend Froome from competition, as other teams have done in similar circumstances?

UCI president David Lappartient expressed a wish that Team Sky suspend Froome while the investigation continued. The MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling) also felt Team Sky should voluntarily suspend Froome, saying it would ‘allow the rider and team to focus on their defence with serenity, but also avoid tension among many managers and riders’.

Team Sky never commented on such requests, but elsewhere repeated the simple claim that Froome had ‘done nothing wrong’.

Why is salbutamol seen differently to other performance-enhancing drugs?

Salbutamol is the active substance in inhalers used by asthma sufferers, most commonly traded under the name Ventolin. But as Conor Mcgrane, Cycling Ireland’s doctor, explains, it has other applications too.

‘Salbutamol’s main use is to relieve bronchial constriction, but it also has actions on muscles at high doses – it’s a muscle stimulant,’ he says. ‘It’s thought that at very high doses it has properties similar to anabolic steroids. But at these doses you’re talking injections, not using an inhaler.’

Why did Froome initially receive an AAF?

The permitted dosage of salbutamol is 800μg (micrograms) over 12 hours and 1,600μg in 24 hours. That equals eight regular puffs on an inhaler within any 12 hours, and no more than 16 puffs in 24 hours. The level of salbutamol in Froome’s urine sample was reportedly 2,000 nanograms per millilitre – double the limit. Quoting the WADA Prohibited List, this ‘is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an AAF unless the athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS), that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose.’

What is a pharmacokinetic study?

‘It’s an attempt to replicate the conditions on the day of the test, the dosage of medication, and the effort he produced on the day, but in a lab setting and monitored by sports scientists approved by the UCI,’ Mcgrane explains.

‘But it’s very hard to replicate the efforts from a Grand Tour stage. They would basically have put him on a turbo trainer for six hours, try to match the temperature, fluid intake and power output he did on the day, and test the urine at the end of it.’ Ultimately, Froome wasn’t required to submit a CPKS in his defence.

Why didn’t WADA and the UCI force him to?

At the time of writing, the reason is still a little opaque. In an official statement, WADA seemed to echo Mcgrane’s assessment that it would be too hard to adequately replicate a stage: ‘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 doping control (eg, illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).’

In place of such a test, WADA said, ‘Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr Froome [...] WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.’

With that in mind, why did the hearing process taking so long?

There’s no set timeframe within which Froome had to put together a solid case, including adequately preparing a CPKS. ‘I think the defence were also trying to cast doubt on the science behind the WADA limits,’ says Mcgrane. ‘Which is fair enough if you’re convinced you did not do anything wrong and are trying to find an explanation.’

As Froome has been cleared of wrongdoing, what will that mean for others who have been suspended for salbutamol use?

Other athletes banned for the substance in the past won’t have their suspension overturned retroactively. ‘But it would surely put the salbutamol test into review,’ says Mcgrane. ‘They would have to review the test and the limits, and completely change current protocol that is based on a long period of study with a lot of experts.’

‘It’s very hard to replicate the efforts from a Grand Tour stage. They would basically have put him on a turbo trainer for six hours’