"If you're in a highly exertional sport, where you're using a lot of energy and you're putting your heart under significant stress, it certainly could help your heart function better theoretically," said Dr. Kelly Johnson-Arbor, a medical toxicology physician at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.
"If you're in a highly exertional sport, where you're using a lot of energy and you're putting your heart under significant stress, it certainly could help your heart function better theoretically," said Dr. Kelly Johnson-Arbor, a medical toxicology physician at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.
"If you're in a highly exertional sport, where you're using a lot of energy and you're putting your heart under significant stress, it certainly could help your heart function better theoretically,"
Could? Theoretically? I am all for banning PEDs but what sort of science is that?
"If you're in a highly exertional sport, where you're using a lot of energy and you're putting your heart under significant stress, it certainly could help your heart function better theoretically," said Dr. Kelly Johnson-Arbor, a medical toxicology physician at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.
That is consistent with my previous post: "The best scientific endorsement I can find is that "in theory it could work"."
You keep saying all of this anti-doping is guided by science.
No doubt "could help ... theoretically" is an important preliminary step in science, but is this the best basis you can find that guided a group of WADA scientists to ban a substance as a stimulant -- no wait -- as a metabolic modulator?
"If you're in a highly exertional sport, where you're using a lot of energy and you're putting your heart under significant stress, it certainly could help your heart function better theoretically," said Dr. Kelly Johnson-Arbor, a medical toxicology physician at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.
"If you're in a highly exertional sport, where you're using a lot of energy and you're putting your heart under significant stress, it certainly could help your heart function better theoretically,"
Could? Theoretically? I am all for banning PEDs but what sort of science is that?
That is only one comment. It isn't merely theoretical, it is inferential because of the known physiological effect of the drug and its history of use by athletes.
"What this drug does is actually make your heart work more efficiently,” Dr. Elizabeth Murray, pediatric emergency medicine physician at the University of Rochester Medical Center, told CNN’s Early Start program in 2022. “It doesn’t change your blood pressure very much or change your heart rate."
“An athlete wouldn’t get jittery or necessarily feel all that different, but they would theoretically be able to perform at a higher level for longer. It would increase their endurance, potentially.”
So a medical expert explains the physiological effects of the drug but in terms of performance enhancement couches it as a "potential" for the obvious reason is neither she nor anyone else would have been able to study its use amongst athletes. The key fact for sports is that athletes use it for performance enhancement reasons. If it had no performance enhancing effects its use would have been discontinued in favour of a drug that does enhance performance.
Once again, you and the doping deniers choose to discount what the drug is likely to do simply because no athlete has been obliging in coming forward to confirm its effects. So the two factors that would guide WADA, that the drug has a potential to enhance performance and that athletes are using it for that purpose are satisfied. If your reasoning were followed, no drug enhances performance because you will never find "proof".
I wasn't expressing these concerns, but wondering why Trimetazidine, and why now?
You may not have been expressing those views but you make it clear that you don't accept that drugs enhance performance. What follows from that is you should therefore have no reason to be concerned about the use of drugs by athletes. But you are - as you show with your endless posting - but mainly from the perspective that you imply they are all too stupid to realise that drugs don't aid performance.
I wasn't expressing these concerns, but wondering why Trimetazidine, and why now?
You may not have been expressing those views but you make it clear that you don't accept that drugs enhance performance. What follows from that is you should therefore have no reason to be concerned about the use of drugs by athletes. But you are - as you show with your endless posting - but mainly from the perspective that you imply they are all too stupid to realise that drugs don't aid performance.
Of course I accept that some drugs can enhance some performance. None of the rest follows.
"What this drug does is actually make your heart work more efficiently,” Dr. Elizabeth Murray, pediatric emergency medicine physician at the University of Rochester Medical Center, told CNN’s Early Start program in 2022. “It doesn’t change your blood pressure very much or change your heart rate."
“An athlete wouldn’t get jittery or necessarily feel all that different, but they would theoretically be able to perform at a higher level for longer. It would increase their endurance, potentially.”
So a medical expert explains the physiological effects of the drug but in terms of performance enhancement couches it as a "potential" for the obvious reason is neither she nor anyone else would have been able to study its use amongst athletes. The key fact for sports is that athletes use it for performance enhancement reasons. If it had no performance enhancing effects its use would have been discontinued in favour of a drug that does enhance performance.
Once again, you and the doping deniers choose to discount what the drug is likely to do simply because no athlete has been obliging in coming forward to confirm its effects. So the two factors that would guide WADA, that the drug has a potential to enhance performance and that athletes are using it for that purpose are satisfied. If your reasoning were followed, no drug enhances performance because you will never find "proof".
Oh great -- another quote that finds "theoretically".
How many national/world class athletes has Dr. Elizabeth Murray coached?
I didn't discount anything, but simply wonder why Trimetazidine, and why now, given that it has been available since the 1970s, wasn't banned before 2014, and wasn't really even used by athletes until 1-2 years ago. Apparently, since you are the only one responding, no one has any real information beyond what I could already find.
You may not have been expressing those views but you make it clear that you don't accept that drugs enhance performance. What follows from that is you should therefore have no reason to be concerned about the use of drugs by athletes. But you are - as you show with your endless posting - but mainly from the perspective that you imply they are all too stupid to realise that drugs don't aid performance.
Of course I accept that some drugs can enhance some performance. None of the rest follows.
Some drugs? But never a specific drug - like Trimetazidine. And never on distance runners, who must be amongst the dumbest of athletes as they continue to use these drugs - which they have for decades. The only performance enhancing effect you have granted is a placebo effect - which you imagine without proof.
"What this drug does is actually make your heart work more efficiently,” Dr. Elizabeth Murray, pediatric emergency medicine physician at the University of Rochester Medical Center, told CNN’s Early Start program in 2022. “It doesn’t change your blood pressure very much or change your heart rate."
“An athlete wouldn’t get jittery or necessarily feel all that different, but they would theoretically be able to perform at a higher level for longer. It would increase their endurance, potentially.”
So a medical expert explains the physiological effects of the drug but in terms of performance enhancement couches it as a "potential" for the obvious reason is neither she nor anyone else would have been able to study its use amongst athletes. The key fact for sports is that athletes use it for performance enhancement reasons. If it had no performance enhancing effects its use would have been discontinued in favour of a drug that does enhance performance.
Once again, you and the doping deniers choose to discount what the drug is likely to do simply because no athlete has been obliging in coming forward to confirm its effects. So the two factors that would guide WADA, that the drug has a potential to enhance performance and that athletes are using it for that purpose are satisfied. If your reasoning were followed, no drug enhances performance because you will never find "proof".
Oh great -- another quote that finds "theoretically".
How many national/world class athletes has Dr. Elizabeth Murray coached?
I didn't discount anything, but simply wonder why Trimetazidine, and why now, given that it has been available since the 1970s, wasn't banned before 2014, and wasn't really even used by athletes until 1-2 years ago. Apparently, since you are the only one responding, no one has any real information beyond what I could already find.
As explained to you, a scientist like the doctor in question uses the word "theoretically" because she has not studied athletes using the drug. Her use of the word "theoretically" effectively means what WADA describes as a "potential" for performance enhancement, because of the medically identifiable effects on human physiology, which could contribute to enhancement. You have acknowledged that athletes have used the drug for 10 years. That isn't enough time to infer that they have ascertained the performance enhancing effects go beyond the merely "theoretical" or "potential"? If the drug had only been introduced this year you might have grounds for scepticism but a decade of use as a ped shows the verdict on the drug is that it does what athletes use it for. So it is properly banned.
Of course I accept that some drugs can enhance some performance. None of the rest follows.
Some drugs? But never a specific drug - like Trimetazidine. And never on distance runners, who must be amongst the dumbest of athletes as they continue to use these drugs - which they have for decades. The only performance enhancing effect you have granted is a placebo effect - which you imagine without proof.
It can be a specific drug, like trimetazidine. I'm more than prepared to follow the data.
The distance running athletes are not the dumb ones telling me these drugs "work".
As explained to you, a scientist like the doctor in question uses the word "theoretically" because she has not studied athletes using the drug. Her use of the word "theoretically" effectively means what WADA describes as a "potential" for performance enhancement, because of the medically identifiable effects on human physiology, which could contribute to enhancement. You have acknowledged that athletes have used the drug for 10 years. That isn't enough time to infer that they have ascertained the performance enhancing effects go beyond the merely "theoretical" or "potential"? If the drug had only been introduced this year you might have grounds for scepticism but a decade of use as a ped shows the verdict on the drug is that it does what athletes use it for. So it is properly banned.
You have explained, it, but this raises the question, is your explanation real, or imagined? What does the data say?
Doctors use "theoretically" precisely because it has not been proven by science with data. WADA describes it as "potential" because this is the language of lawyers, not scientists.
You are mistaken again. I did not "(acknowledge) that athletes have used the drug for 10 years". On the contrary, I acknowledged that trimetazidine use has always been scarce, pointing you specifically to an article which says: "it is fair to conclude that TMZ application has always been scant", as late as 2019, according to WADA's own testing. The increase in busts for trimetazidine are very recent, in the last 1-2 years.
Contrary to your explanations otherwise, we can clearly see that WADA banned trimetazidine in 2014, with no scientific guidance, at a time when athletes were not using it. Why?
We can infer from the lack of peer reviewed research as late as 2022, that WADA was not guided by science in 2014.
We can infer from the historically scarce use from athletes, that athletes did not consider the drug performance enhancing before it was banned.
Some drugs? But never a specific drug - like Trimetazidine. And never on distance runners, who must be amongst the dumbest of athletes as they continue to use these drugs - which they have for decades. The only performance enhancing effect you have granted is a placebo effect - which you imagine without proof.
It can be a specific drug, like trimetazidine. I'm more than prepared to follow the data.
The distance running athletes are not the dumb ones telling me these drugs "work".
Placebo effect is proven, unlike "PED" effects.
Show the "proof" that EPO, blood-doping, meldonium, Trimetazidine and various steroids have a placebo effect only.
Show also the proof that countless athletes using these drugs have been unaware the only gains they made from using the drugs are because of a placebo effect.
Show also where WADA acknowledges the only performance benefits from drugs is a placebo effect.
As explained to you, a scientist like the doctor in question uses the word "theoretically" because she has not studied athletes using the drug. Her use of the word "theoretically" effectively means what WADA describes as a "potential" for performance enhancement, because of the medically identifiable effects on human physiology, which could contribute to enhancement. You have acknowledged that athletes have used the drug for 10 years. That isn't enough time to infer that they have ascertained the performance enhancing effects go beyond the merely "theoretical" or "potential"? If the drug had only been introduced this year you might have grounds for scepticism but a decade of use as a ped shows the verdict on the drug is that it does what athletes use it for. So it is properly banned.
You have explained, it, but this raises the question, is your explanation real, or imagined? What does the data say?
Doctors use "theoretically" precisely because it has not been proven by science with data. WADA describes it as "potential" because this is the language of lawyers, not scientists.
You are mistaken again. I did not "(acknowledge) that athletes have used the drug for 10 years". On the contrary, I acknowledged that trimetazidine use has always been scarce, pointing you specifically to an article which says: "it is fair to conclude that TMZ application has always been scant", as late as 2019, according to WADA's own testing. The increase in busts for trimetazidine are very recent, in the last 1-2 years.
Contrary to your explanations otherwise, we can clearly see that WADA banned trimetazidine in 2014, with no scientific guidance, at a time when athletes were not using it. Why?
We can infer from the lack of peer reviewed research as late as 2022, that WADA was not guided by science in 2014.
We can infer from the historically scarce use from athletes, that athletes did not consider the drug performance enhancing before it was banned.
You don't understand what WADA does or why. Everything you argue is projection. If WADA was advised by medical experts of the effects of the drugs it could logically take the view that the drug had the potential to be performance enhancing and therefore be banned. Its use by athletes suggests that finding was correct, since athletes and their coaches are guided by science not superstition, which we see in everything from their approach to training, technique and equipment. Yet, when it comes to drugs it seems all reason departs from them - if your views have any meaning.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.