Drug reading makes Vuelta win more remarkable
My first reaction on hearing of Chris Froome’s “failed” salbutamol test was one of surprise – that he won the Vuelta a Espana at all given those levels of salbutamol. In my view, that makes his achievement more remarkable rather than suspicious.
Having 2,000ng/ml of salbutamol in one’s urine does not suggest doping to me. In fact, I would happily testify in court to salbutamol having no performance-enhancing benefits whatsoever – aside from the known benefits in dilating the airways in someone with asthma.
Higher doses of salbutamol in the long term can cause muscle weakness, impair cardiac function by increasing heart response and lower blood potassium – all of which would impair rather than improve performance.
To me, Froome’s reading suggests that he, or rather his doctor, was doing a poor job of controlling his asthma. Salbutamol is a short-acting beta agonist. It provides fast-acting relief, but that is all. In layman’s terms, it is like putting a sticky plaster over asthma for a few hours.
Even the reading on its own is useless unless you have context. You would need to know when Froome took the drug, how much he took, how soon he took it before the urine was taken and how dehydrated he was. Taking a random spot urine sample for salbutamol is meaningless as there are numerous factors which could affect this: the type of inhaler can vary levels by at least 50 per cent, and also the absorptive surface area of the lungs in an elite athlete.
It is not an exact science. The 1,000ng/ml limit itself is an arbitrary one. I am no doping expert, but I can see no rationale that those levels of salbutamol could improve his performance.
Dr Lipworth works at the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee