03.07.2018, 00:37
|
#9418
|
Szenekenner
Registriert seit: 01.02.2008
Beiträge: 18.857
|
WADA will not appeal UCI decision in Christopher Froome case
Die WADA gibt hier recht ausführlich Auskunft:
"WADA’s decision follows a full and careful review of all explanations and supporting evidence submitted by Mr. Froome in the month of June (which the UCI shared with WADA), as well as thorough consultation with internal and independent external experts. On the basis of this, WADA’s position is as follows:
- Based on a number of factors that are specific to the case of Mr. Froome -- including, in particular, a significant increase in dose, over a short period prior to the doping control, in connection with a documented illness; as well as, demonstrated within-subject variability in the excretion of Salbutamol -- WADA concluded that the sample result was not inconsistent with the ingestion of inhaled Salbutamol within the permitted maximum dose.
- WADA recognizes that, in rare cases, athletes may exceed the decision limit concentration (of 1200 ng of Salbutamol per ml of urine) without exceeding the maximum inhaled dose. This is precisely why the Prohibited List allows for athletes that exceed the decision limit to demonstrate, typically through a controlled pharmacokinetic study (CPKS) as permitted by the Prohibited List, that the relevant concentration is compatible with a permissible, inhaled dose.
- In Mr. Froome’s case, 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 7 September doping control (e.g. illness, use of medication, chronic use of Salbutamol at varying doses over the course of weeks of high intensity competition).
- Therefore, having carefully reviewed Mr. Froome’s explanations and taking into account the unique circumstances of his case, WADA accepts that:
- the sample result is not inconsistent with an ingestion of Salbutamol within the permitted maximum inhaled dose;
- an adequate CPKS is not practicable; and
- the sample may be considered not to be an AAF.
WADA believes this to be the right and fair outcome for what was a very complex case."
Kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass die ASO ihn bei dieser Lage immer noch ausschließt, denn das könnte teuer werden.
|
|
|