The fact that it's not on the banned PED list means it has no benefit. You can rest assured the doping agencies have tested it and found no performance benefit. It's simply a placebo.
I don't belive they "test" things to determine if they are good enough to be banned? We have a trove of good evidence that creatine and caffeine are bona fide PEs. I think it has more to do with bicarb being food. but I don't know what the conversation is at usada.
You sound sure of yourself but there is this with a quick Google search:
'The human body continuously produces lactic acid (specifically, its byproduct, lactate) as a natural part of metabolism, particularly in muscles and red blood cells. It is generated during anaerobic respiration—when breaking down glucose for energy without sufficient oxygen—which increases significantly during high-intensity exercise, causing a temporary, localized "burn".'
Lactic acid is the old name for Lactate, which isn't an acid. It's produced constantly, not during high intensity exercise.
The name matters less than the process, which is that there is a build-up of lactate in high intensity exercise. We all feel it. The relevant question is whether bicarb significantly reduces that experience or not, or whether there is something else athletes are using to do that.
Lactic acid is the old name for Lactate, which isn't an acid. It's produced constantly, not during high intensity exercise.
The name matters less than the process, which is that there is a build-up of lactate in high intensity exercise. We all feel it. The relevant question is whether bicarb significantly reduces that experience or not, or whether there is something else athletes are using to do that.
You can't feel lactate. You feel hydrogen ion build up, but you can feel it at low intensity too when you are glycogen depleted.
Bicarbonate is naturally present in your muscles, you just need the right amount. But you can't prevent acidosis when the muscle is glycogen depleted.