Salazar/Rupp/Farah ... Looking for an unfair advantage

At an elite level of training, it's certainly possible, probably even likely, that athletes crush their thyroids to a degree. The question is, is it necessary to do thyroid supplementation? And, if so, it would seem extremely difficult to do it adequately. I don't see it as an issue of legality, because if one's health is impacted detrimentally, then perhaps it's required, though it can be a double-edge sword. On the subject of fairness, should all athletes have access to it?

If you believe Dr. JS-G, then not all altitude is created equally, and the effects are very individualized.

http://fasterskier.com/2012/07/is-live-high-train-low-dead-not-a-chance-says-stray-gundersen-its-just-hard/

Crazy Canuck wrote:

Don't forget Adam Goucher was also on Thyroid medication while training with Alberto :

http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=21172

Interesting quotes from the paper:

"Training can bring on thyroid dysfunction in runners who have a family history. The stress of running "induces the antibody," causing the body to attack its own thyroid. "It's the actual training, and I don't mean overtraining," says Brown, "that causes the gene to turn on. With either too much or too little thyroid, your muscles don't contract normally. They don't have the power to contract. So sprinters don't run as fast, jumpers don't jump as far, and distance runners' times get slower." Treatment brings runners back to normal without conferring any advantage."

"Runners use altitude training and altitude tents (which simulate hypoxia) to increase EPO naturally. "You can get a 10 to 15 percent increase," says Brown.

But Brown has some words to the wise for runners who would go this route: There's no proof that elevated EPO works. "The oxygen that gets to the muscle is actually dissolved oxygen in the plasma," he says. "You go from red blood cell to plasma to tissue. There's a homeostatic mechanism in the body that maintains oxygen levels in the plasma. And plasma is not affected by EPO."

Brown believes the improved performances turned in by athletes on EPO might have a simple explanation: Elite runners tend to be anemic. "Pounding pavement with their feet breaks up red blood cells," he says, "and they lose them. So you bring somebody back to normal [with EPO], and they do remarkably better!"

The interesting thing about Adam Goucher is that, under Salazar, he merely returned to his old self. Ok, he ran one second faster in the 5,000, even as it seemed a miraculous recovery. I would tend to believe athletes like Adam "kill themselves" and do, in fact, promote hormonal disturbance in the body. Remember, the guy suffered from depression, I believe, for awhile. Hormones are tricky business.

These are interesting points but when I think about them, they seem to lead into a moral quagmire. Some would argue that taking thyroid hormone because you "crushed" your thyroid through hard training is really no different from taking steroids or human growth hormone because you "crushed" your muscles from training hard.

If hard training is damaging your body so that you cannot keep training at the same level without any sort of pharmacological support then to what extent is the pharmacological support performance enhancing? In contrast I do not think that many people would ethically question reducing training volume/intensity when it comes to dealing with health issues brought about by hard training although unfortunately the athlete's performance level would be likely reduced.

I actually agree with you, but what if the damage becomes chronic and cannot be resolved with rest? But, as to the issue of fairness, yes, should all athletes have the same access? Perhaps some of them do. It sure seems like many had a "different level of access" in the 90s, when times started dropping rapidly in the 5-10,000 and now in the marathon.

High performance is all about balance between training hard and rest.

If Thyroid hormone comes into play to make you train harder and stay sharp even when going through long periods of training... what's the difference with EPO or other PEDS?

It's an artificial aid / boost that only a little group surrounded with MD's and specialists and other drug gurus paid by Nike!

Legal or not?!!...

Crazy Canuck, I don't know why you posted that link, because the quotes I pulled from it seem to refute the essence of your argument. It is entirely plausible that some athletes don't respond adequately with simple rest the way others do, depending on genetics. So, do those with good genetics who don't need hormone supplementation have an unfair advantage over those who do? And balancing thyroid hormone is extremely difficulty, even for the well-versed. It's playing with fire, as anyone who has supplemented can attest.

Crazy Canuck, I don't know why you posted that link, because the quotes I pulled from it seem to refute the essence of your argument. It is entirely plausible that some athletes don't respond adequately with simple rest the way others do, depending on genetics. So, do those with good genetics who don't need hormone supplementation have an unfair advantage over those who do? And balancing thyroid hormone is extremely difficulty, even for the well-versed. It's playing with fire, as anyone who has supplemented can attest.

High training lowers testosterone, yet test supplementation is illegal. High training causes anemia, but again EPO supplementation is illegal. If heavy training lowers thyroid function, is this different from other banned training aids?

Whatever Salazar is doing, it doesn't seem to translate to the marathon. Does Ritz have hypothyroidism?

Ritz have hopbrainium!

hypobrainium!

Ratskeller wrote:

High training lowers testosterone, yet test supplementation is illegal. High training causes anemia, but again EPO supplementation is illegal. If heavy training lowers thyroid function, is this different from other banned training aids?

True. But high altitude, done properly as per the paper above, does confer EPO advantages. And lots of sleep does spit out more more HgH. As far as I'm concerned, everyone on the starting line should all have the same thyroid function, period. If some are disadvantaged, then it is an ethical issue.

All I'm really gleaning from having studied the physiology of running is that long bouts of intense training and big miles are probably not a good thing over the long haul. Personally, I think it's partly what did me in.

Crazy Canuck wrote:

hypobrainium!

I much prefer hopbranium.

-Adam Smith, master hopnotist

(deceased)

Runnah wrote:

These are interesting points but when I think about them, they seem to lead into a moral quagmire. Some would argue that taking thyroid hormone because you "crushed" your thyroid through hard training is really no different from taking steroids or human growth hormone because you "crushed" your muscles from training hard.

If hard training is damaging your body so that you cannot keep training at the same level without any sort of pharmacological support then to what extent is the pharmacological support performance enhancing? In contrast I do not think that many people would ethically question reducing training volume/intensity when it comes to dealing with health issues brought about by hard training although unfortunately the athlete's performance level would be likely reduced.

Good argument. If a baseball player through overthrowing crushes his tendon and has Tommy John surgery, is that 'performance enhancing?' Clearly, the answer would have to be yes. But is it ethically wrong? that a tough argument to make.

Adam Smith: OK, help me out calculating the odds. I admit to having no formal training in stats. However, first let me point out that I was not saying it was remarkable that both Rupp and Salazar had thyroid problems requiring medications; I said BOTH of his star runners - i.e. if indeed Farah is on thyroid meds, it WOULD be remarkable that the Salazar-Rupp-Farah trio all had thyroid conditions. If other posters are correct about the Gouchers indeed having thyroid conditions, it is full-on suspicious.

Also, I think you must be wrong about calculating the odds. True, Salazar having a thyroid condition doesn't affect in any way the likeliness of Rupp (or Farah) having a genuine thyroid condition, but the odds of 3 random people all having a condition that affects 3-10% of the population have got to be slim. The way I read your response, it looks like you're saying, no, the odds are still 3-10% that all 3 will have it, which is clearly incorrect. Anybody out there good with statistics? I thought you just multiplied the odds together (i.e. 10% times 10% times 10% equals 0.1% chance that 3 people have it) but maybe I'm wrong.

Hazmat wrote:

We know that Salazar took thyroid meds, and so does Rupp, but has it been established that Farah is actually on thyroid medication? If so, that is definitely suspicious. According to Wikipedia, hypothyroidism occurs in "between three and ten percent of adults, with incidence higher in women and the elderly". The odds of a coach and both of his star runners all suffering from this condition is thousands to one against.

The odds are higher than you think as it is much more common amongst serious endurance athletes.......why, who knows, that is what the doc told me when I was diagnosed...maybe it has to do with stressing the system so much that one goes through waves of hyper production enough to trigger an immune response.....or it is the water......illness.....or all the shitty food we eat...despite this, the most common cause (99% or all hypo patients) is an autoimmune response to the thyroid gland itself.....as was for me, and I ran a lot back in the day for years (100 to 120 mile weeks), all while living off of junk food and 2-3L of cola a day as it was the cheapest calorie source (probably a bad idea).....I don't doubt the possibility at all for all of them and more runners than are diagnosed.....usually it would get missed because we are always running and stay thin when most cases one would fatten up pretty quick if they stopped.......how many fat washed up distance runners do you know (or swimmers for that matter); I know a lot and most of them have probably never had their thyroids checked.

They should.

It looks like I did make an error with those odds (denominator should be 10,000). Also, did not understand you were putting Farah in the group. Nevertheless, the logical presumptions remain the same and I think you're making an error.

It seems that you are looking at this from the perspective that "thyroid issues are rare, so if three people are grouped together this must be proof that hypothyroidism is a mask and the thyroid medication is really PED." While this situation may be true, and Sagarin's comments are more useful to that end, the math doesn't support the logic.

Take a step back and look at the big picture: take all elite distance runners and coaches as one group. I don't know how many people that may be, but let's say it's 1,000 people. If 3-10% of these people have hypothyroidism, that's 30-100 runners. It's not unlikely that these runners/coaches share the same group. In fact, it would be highly unlikely if no coach/runner pair shared this condition.

This idea is better explained with the "soccer players sharing the same birthday" probability question. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ey9a70yY0]

Another logical consideration: if Salazar knows about hypothyroidism from experience, and many people who suffer from hypothyroidism are undiagnosed, his experience is more likely to contribute to a proper diagnosis. Again, see Sagarin's comments for better thoughts here.

Nevertheless, the math does not negate the occurrence of the event. I know that lottery winners are extremely rare (compared to contest entrants) yet I read stories about them every day. Should I presume these stories are false because I know that winning the lottery is rare?

McGurk, I agree with everything you just said but wanted you to know that EBV mimicry can provoke thyroiditis via presenting a similar antigen. I still think there's another culprit behind Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, but EBV may be an important co-factor.