How soon until bicarb is banned?

You must be talking about yourself, as it was you who said "It apparently isn't seen as a significant aid to athletes or it would have been banned."

Unfortunately, WADA doesn't ever make their thinking public. They say they use 2 out of 3 criteria as a guidance, but they don't explain which criteria was met drug by drug, and many drugs can arguably meet 2 out of 3 criteria that are not banned.

But certainly drugs banned for health and spirit reasons will not be "seen as a significant aid" by WADA.

He doesn't realize it but he is always contradicting himself.

We tried this in the late 80s in HS. Works great.

The entire reason anti-doping became a thing was because people were dying and ending up disabled from using substances to enhance performance. That's it. It has to cause harm.

You've tried it? Like the other drugs/substances you say don't aid performance?

Eating too many prunes can do some of that, too (in fact, too much of anything. Overdoing carrot juice has been known to kill). I wonder why prunes aren't banned?

But since the experts clearly know more than you they aren't impressed by bicarb's performance enhancing abilities or its effects on health.

You miss the fact that it hasn't been banned for any reason. If it is unfairly performance enhancing it would be banned on those grounds. It hasn't been banned, so it hasn't met that criterion. If it was harmful to health it would be banned on those grounds. It hasn't been banned so it isn't deemed harmful to health. If it was against the spirit of sportsmanship it would be banned. It hasn't been banned, so it isn't against the spirit of sportsmanship. So none of the three grounds for a ban have been exercised to ban bicarb. Three strikes and you're out - loser.

You fail to note that it is he who has argued "performance enhancement" are grounds for imposing a ban, while not observing performance enhancement has to be deemed unfair to warrant a ban. Most of what athletes do legitimately is performance enhancing or they wouldn't do it.

Sorry, that isn't it. There have been casualties from doping but most dopers don't fall into that category - or we would be reading of the deaths of athletes on a daily basis.

No, he didn't say that.

Yes I've tried it. Haven't you?

Six pages in on something that hasn't been through peer reviewed studies to actually confirm what the exact quantifiable benefit is, rather than Athlete X took it and broke an a indoor WR.

Notwithstanding that it would be difficult to justify a ban when compared to other 'foods' taken, we haven't even got data to back it up.

It is something that seems in theory would work, 'IF' the compound actually made its way into your bloodstream, however we haven't even got percentges of what amount does (if any) cross the digestive barrier.

Sure , IV induced it would probably work, but rather than spending money on bicarb coated in gels, get some super shoes, train wiser, train harder and race better.

Not for performance enhancement. So you have? What did it do for your prs? Is it the only substance that you accept enhances performance (yet isn't banned)?

That's some twisted self-serving logic -- you seem to be assuming it's not possible for the banned list to fail to meet the criteria, or for the criteria to fail to be applied to unbanned substances, and that all substances worldwide are considered by the annual "expert" committee annually, so substances not banned must be deemed to be none of the above by virtue of not being banned.

To reconcile this, you have invented this new criteria of "unfair". So you are saying some secret committee, a specialist group of doctors, meets behind closed doors annually to decide on fairness? What is WADA's guidance to determine the fairness of a substance or method? Do they need to go to special fairness training and get a degree or certification in addition to any medical and sports degrees?

It all seems so arbitrary. Drugs that easily meet the stated criteria, known to enhance performance with potentially harmful side effects, are not banned, and most drugs that are banned are not known to be performance enhancing. The arguments for meldonium and thyroid are identical, yet meldonium is banned but thyroid is not.

You keep pointing to "experts" (you are a big fan of "appeal to authority" fallacy) and how their knowledge is far greater than mine. Here is an excerpt from a review of the body of knowledge in the literature about performance enhancement:

"Only 5 of 23 substance classes (banned by WADA) show evidence of having the ability to enhance actual sports performance, i.e. anabolic agents, Beta2-agonists, stimulants, glucocorticoids and Beta-blockers. One additional class, growth hormone, has similar evidence but only in untrained subjects. The observed effects all relate to strength or sprint performance (and accuracy for Beta-blockers); there are no studies showing positive effects on reliable markers of endurance performance. For 11 classes, no well-designed studies are available, and, for the remaining six classes, there is evidence of an absence of a positive effect. In conclusion, for the majority of substance classes, no convincing evidence for performance enhancement is available, while, for the remaining classes, the evidence is based on a total of only 266 subjects from 11 studies."

link.springer.com

Review of WADA Prohibited Substances: Limited Evidence for Performance-Enhancing Effects - Sports Medicine

The World Anti-Doping Agency is responsible for maintaining a Prohibited List that describes the use of substances and methods that are prohibited for athletes. The list currently contains 23 substance classes, and an importa...

Open link

Where are these experts/doctors getting their knowledge about sports performance from?

Here's another interesting question: Why are placebos not on WADA’s Prohibited List?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211266920300074

I never said dihydrogen monoxide was performance enhancing. But it is widely recommended to support heat dissipation -- a known factor in preventing premature fatigue and termination of any intense effort.

There are many unbanned performance enhancing substances I accept, and have personally used: coffee, sugar, bananas, apples, oranges, many fruit juices, coca-cola, isotonic drinks, cereal/protein/energy bars, rice-krispie treats, cakes, etc.

Bicarb for exercise performance has been peer-review studied for almost 100 years, and the benefits, and side-effects, are well known.

What kind of nonsense is this? Who is "he" in your sentence? You?

I never argued that ""performance enhancement" are grounds for imposing a ban".

In fact, I have frequently argued the opposite -- athletes are routinely banned when they are running slower, or not running at all, because establishing performance benefit is not a factor for banning.

So you don't know why WADA exists and why it is concerned with banning drugs in sports - even with the express criteria it applies for deciding what it will ban. It is merely some strange secret body that, without rhyme or reason, interferes with athletes doing whatever they wish. That explains a lot about the sheer f****** stupidity of your opinions on doping.

All those are performance enhancing - but drugs aren't. WADA is clearly banning the wrong substances.