The Doubtful Double

by Thomas Cracknell

On the 10th September 2017 Chris Froome won the Vuelta a España for the first time, meanwhile launching himself in the to the cycling history books as he became only the third man to win consecutively the Tour de France and the Vuelta a España and the previous double was 19 years ago. In completing this feat of history Chris Froome cycled 4264 miles over the course of the summer which, to put it in to perspective, is equivalent to riding from Land’s End to John O’Groats 5 times; he spent a total of 165 hours on the bike in one summer. Moreover, he is estimated to have burned 252,000 calories - the equivalent of 5,600 chicken nuggets.

So how did he do it? One speculation was the limited number of racing days leading up to the Tour de France. Froome’s mere 26 racing days do suggest perhaps he was more rested, prepared and ultimately focused on the Tour-Vuelta double with is comparatively low number of racing days on the run up to these two grand tours. However, on investigation its shows that, although 26 is low, it is only one day less than 2016 and 2015. On the other hand, there is the suggestion that it is purely Froome’s and Team Sky’s focus and goal setting on achieving this with this season being the first ever time they have declared openly this as their ultimate goal. In addition, it could be speculated with the Vuelta occurring after the Tour de France and as the final grand tour it comes as an afterthought to the world tour teams, so that the focus of Team Sky on this tour bucked that trend and allowed them to achieve the double. Finally, Chris Froome’s success is, without a doubt, a result of his killer competitive instinct and drive to win and succeed, as was best shown on the final day of the Vuelta which was set to be a procession for Froome. However, to deny his closest rivals the green jersey as well (points classification leader's jersey) Froome sprinted to the line where he ultimately claimed the green jersey as well.

However, his summer of success and riding in the yellow and red of the leader’s jersey has come to an end with a controversy casting his historic achievement in the doom and ‘Froome’ of doping allegations.

It began on the 7th September which coincided with the 18th stage of the Vuelta a España, where a urine sample taken by the UCI’s anti-doping body was found to be “adverse” with high readings of Salbutamol. But what is salbutamol and why has Froome taken it? It is a common asthma medication often found in inhalers, to reduce symptoms of asthma, and it can also be ingested orally. More importantly, it is not on WADS’s (world anti-doping agency) banned list of substances and therefore, does not require a TUE (therapeutic use exemption) to use; however it is monitored in urine tests and is only permitted up to and not exceeding a certain level, 1000 ng/ml. However, Froome’s sample from the 7th September was around double WADA’s legal limit.

So … on the face of it this saga is very clear cut. Froome produced a urine sample over the legal limit on a drug which is strictly controlled. However, it is not a simple as it seems. Due to salbutamol, not being an out and out banned substance by WADA it did not have to be publically disclosed when this sample was found. It was only due to an investigation by Le Monde and The Guardian which made this public knowledge.

So, what does this mean right now? 

As of now Chris Froome and team sky are unsanctioned therefore meaning they can continue to race and he remains the winner of the 2017 Vuelta and therefore the Tour-Vuelta double. Froome’s and team sky’s most likely way to prove his innocents and escape an imminent ban is via a pharmacokinetic study. This involves Team Sky and Froome having to prove that if he took the dose suggested by the sample it would not have influenced performance. Failing to do so will result in a ban up to 2 years, although another similar case has been banned between 9 months to a year, and the victory at the Vuelta has been stripped from the individual and team involved. However, an unknown is exactly how many riders have been in similar position and have successfully been able to explain in private to the UCI the higher concentration in the sample (as, without the newspaper enquiry, Team Sky would have done or attempted to do).

Another unknown is exactly how likely it is that Team Sky is going to be able to prove that there would have been no benefit. Some research studies have shown that in groups of 8 trained and untrained men and women a benefit to sprint performance over a 30 second sprint after they ingested a 12mg dose of salbutamol (7 times the legal limit). Furthermore, the study suggested that a one off large dose had a greater performance enhancing benefit than a long course which corresponds to Chris Froome’s ‘adverse’ sample. On the other hand, why would Chris Froome, the race leader, take a higher dose of salbutamol with the knowledge that at the end of every stage he is drugs tested and therefore with an easily testable drug like salbutamol it is guaranteed he will be caught for arguably very limited benefits. Furthermore, we approach the issue of sample concentration. Froome returned samples of twice the legal limit and using the evidence from the studies explained above it is arguable that if he took 7 times the legal limit he would have returned a sample of a lot more. Therefore, from our perspective why would Team Sky take a marginally higher dose for arguably no benefit with the guarantee of being caught?

To conclude, on achieving the Tour de France and Vuelta España double Froome wrote himself in to the history books. However, now he is likely to remain there for a different reason. No matter the outcome, not matter how soon this saga can be resolved Froome’s reputation and this historic double will always be tainted. Also, this case only highlights the ‘grey area’ of TUEs and other unbanned substances which will only ever lead to abuse and misinterpretation and where further clarity is desperately needed.

Finally, for any cycling fan like me, this whole turn of events and how they unfold in the future strike me as such an awful shame. However, this is just one case, from one man, from one team and it is so important to remember that and never let it stain cycling as a whole.