And safe, more importantly. Sometimes these boards get a bit lost on the topic of doping.
Authoritative bodies are not looking to ban anything that gives someone an advantage. They are looking to ban substances and technologies that are blatantly and systematically unfair (e.g. $10k tech swimsuits that only a few nations can afford) or that pose health hazards (e.g. EPO--deaths during sleep, increased cancer risk).
Bicarb doesn't fit either of these buckets, so will likely stay legal in perpetuity.
If a substance gives actual advantage or has the potential to enhance performance for those who use it then it is put on the banned list. The so-called advantages of bicarb are therefore not established or are greatly overestimated.
Wrong, dumbo. Are gels banned? You know nothing about the subject.
No, substances are not added merely because they confer an advantage. They must also pose a health risk or violate the "spirit of the sport." The latter is pretty subjective, but it's been applied mostly to actual drugs like Meldonium or to really weird stuff like inhaled argon gasses.
That isn't correct. The substances can be banned for any one of those reasons. It doesn't require all 3 to apply.
"Typically, a substance or method will be considered for the WADA Prohibited List if the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:
- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance - It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete - It violates the spirit of sport"
"Typically, a substance or method will be considered for the WADA Prohibited List if the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:
- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance - It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete - It violates the spirit of sport"
It doesn't have to present a health risk. But something that offers advantage over other athletes is more likely than not to violate the spirit of fairness in sport and so will meet both those criteria. If bicarb offered significant advantage it would also be seen to violate the principle of fairness and would be banned. Its advantages are therefore not clearly established or are seen as minor - like chocolate bars.
If a substance gives actual advantage or has the potential to enhance performance for those who use it then it is put on the banned list. The so-called advantages of bicarb are therefore not established or are greatly overestimated.
Wrong, dumbo. Are gels banned? You know nothing about the subject.
Is coffee banned? Are bananas banned? Are chocolate bars and electrolyte drinks? The advantage would have to be seen as unfair - and unfair advantage also violates the spirit of sportsmanship.
Wrong, dumbo. Are gels banned? You know nothing about the subject.
Is coffee banned? Are bananas banned? Are chocolate bars and electrolyte drinks? The advantage would have to be seen as unfair - and unfair advantage also violates the spirit of sportsmanship.
And baking soda very obviously isn’t unfair and doesn’t violate the spirit of sportsmanship.
"Typically, a substance or method will be considered for the WADA Prohibited List if the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:
- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance - It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete - It violates the spirit of sport"
At some point, do you say that bicarb represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete when taken in massive quantities? I feel like it should be treated similar to caffeine. Caffeine is fine until taken up to a certain quantity. With the quantity and frequency that many athletes are taking bicarb now, does it have any sort of long term health risks? What about the short term risk of athletes who take it and don’t respond to it well? Like they sxxx their brains out and end up severely dehydrated for a warm cross country race and pass out or something.
Is coffee banned? Are bananas banned? Are chocolate bars and electrolyte drinks? The advantage would have to be seen as unfair - and unfair advantage also violates the spirit of sportsmanship.
And baking soda very obviously isn’t unfair and doesn’t violate the spirit of sportsmanship.
So it's about as performance enhancing as chocolate bars.
"Typically, a substance or method will be considered for the WADA Prohibited List if the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:
- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance - It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete - It violates the spirit of sport"
At some point, do you say that bicarb represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete when taken in massive quantities? I feel like it should be treated similar to caffeine. Caffeine is fine until taken up to a certain quantity. With the quantity and frequency that many athletes are taking bicarb now, does it have any sort of long term health risks? What about the short term risk of athletes who take it and don’t respond to it well? Like they sxxx their brains out and end up severely dehydrated for a warm cross country race and pass out or something.
Anything taken in massive quantities is harmful. People have died from consuming too much carrot juice. The issue is whether the substance in question can be harmful per se - in any quantities or at least in the quantities in which it is consumed to gain athletic advantage.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
At some point, do you say that bicarb represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete when taken in massive quantities? I feel like it should be treated similar to caffeine. Caffeine is fine until taken up to a certain quantity. With the quantity and frequency that many athletes are taking bicarb now, does it have any sort of long term health risks? What about the short term risk of athletes who take it and don’t respond to it well? Like they sxxx their brains out and end up severely dehydrated for a warm cross country race and pass out or something.
Anything taken in massive quantities is harmful. People have died from consuming too much carrot juice. The issue is whether the substance in question can be harmful per se - in any quantities or at least in the quantities in which it is consumed to gain athletic advantage.
Well you don’t really have people arguing for drinking a gallon of carrot juice before every workout, but you do have businesses and people saying you should take bicarb not only for racing, but for workouts too. Can’t confirm the validity of this, but I someone on here said that Maurten used to say you should only take bicarb once a week at maximum and now they say it can be taken multiple times per week. Did it magically become safer to take more frequently or are they just trying to load their pockets?
Anything taken in massive quantities is harmful. People have died from consuming too much carrot juice. The issue is whether the substance in question can be harmful per se - in any quantities or at least in the quantities in which it is consumed to gain athletic advantage.
Well you don’t really have people arguing for drinking a gallon of carrot juice before every workout, but you do have businesses and people saying you should take bicarb not only for racing, but for workouts too. Can’t confirm the validity of this, but I someone on here said that Maurten used to say you should only take bicarb once a week at maximum and now they say it can be taken multiple times per week. Did it magically become safer to take more frequently or are they just trying to load their pockets?
Your question can be answered with this question: are there frequent reports of athletes having significant health issues as a result of using bicarb? I'm sure WADA would be very interested if there were.
Why is WADA apparently unconcerned with caffeine? "Dumb" is your first name.
Because caffeine is in every cup of coffee and impossible to therefore ban. It could well have been banned otherwise and at some point I think this was attempted till it was realised it was unworkable. Bicarb hasn't been banned because it's performance enhancing potential isn't conclusive and it isn't seen as a risk to health when taken by athletes. So - like chocolate bars. You understand nothing.
How far are you going to take this ban? No cookies or even pancakes for breakfast the day of races?
I'll bite. So what is about taking a chemical to alter physiologic ph to enhance performance that is somehow so different to you than EPO, T etc...? Testosterone couldn't possibly be more natural, but it's banned? So what's the bar here? Bicarb just sounds simple so its OK? These people are not eating cookies, they are ingestion a chemical that is barely tolerable without special packaging to enhance performance. It's not food, not a vitamin, not a mineral, not water...
I don't think bicarb should be banned, IMO doesn't meet 2 of the three criteria of a banned substance. I always took the "spirit of the sport" rule to mean its something widely unavailable for either being illegal in most jurisdictions or prohibitively expensive for the average runner, so makes for an uneven playing field. Bicarb is in almost all baked goods and the popularized versions for runners is about as difficult to get as a good pair of spikes.
