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.
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.
BS. So WADA is banning athletes who are running slower from taking drugs? Why TF would it do that? You're unbelievable. The drugs are being used for performance enhancement - there is no other reason for athletes using drugs or medicines for which they have no ailment - and physicians and pharmacists have identified how the drugs could likely aid athletic performance through their effect on physiology. But you see no more performance enhancement in any banned drugs than from consuming a banana. You are the worst propagandist ever on this site - and that's saying a lot with the deranged political threads here.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Did people just figure this out? And if so, why did it take so long?
Taking straight bicarb usually causes stomach distress. So sure you could get some lactate buffering, but you might get awful stomach cramps and some explosive results.
What changed recently is commercially available delivery mechanisms (bicarb in a gel like suspension), that seems to solve the digestion problem. People started seeing results in races, started adding it for training, and it got pretty widespread.
Is this why Josh Kerr couldn't race at Milrose? Too much Bicarb :p
Should have left us without all the theatrics of puking out your blueberries as soon as you ate it and just admitted you had a bad hip which caused you to drop out
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.
Bicarb for exercise performance has been peer-review studied for almost 100 years, and the benefits, and side-effects, are well known.
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.
It's funny to watch you get so upset because of your general failure to comprehend plain English.
Where did I say I "don't know why WADA exists and why it is concerned with banning drugs in sports"? I never did, because I know why WADA exists and why it is concerned with banning drugs in sports. You just make things up every time you lose an argument to pretend there is a controversy.
WADA explains three criteria they consider before adding drugs to the list, but you have invented your own novel qualifier -- that the performance benefit needs to be "unfair". Because it is 2 out of 3, drugs can theoretically provide an "unfair benefit", if they are deemed healthy and deemed in the spirit of sport.
But it is all speculation, because WADA doesn't explain which criteria were met for each drug, and how they determined that, and whether the benefit or harm was considered "potential" or "real".
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.
All those are performance enhancing - but drugs aren't. WADA is clearly banning the wrong substances.
Maybe some drugs are peformance enhancing. WADA doesn't concern itself too much with establishing that.
Bicarb for exercise performance has been peer-review studied for almost 100 years, and the benefits, and side-effects, are well known.
Not via ingestion
OK. I don't know about IV versus ingestion, but it would surely solve digestion side effects.
I just saw that Maurten's hydrogel delivery solves the stomach issues, and there is pretty recent research on the effectiveness using Maurten's system.
BS. So WADA is banning athletes who are running slower from taking drugs? Why TF would it do that? You're unbelievable. The drugs are being used for performance enhancement - there is no other reason for athletes using drugs or medicines for which they have no ailment - and physicians and pharmacists have identified how the drugs could likely aid athletic performance through their effect on physiology. But you see no more performance enhancement in any banned drugs than from consuming a banana. You are the worst propagandist ever on this site - and that's saying a lot with the deranged political threads here.
For your education, WADA doesn't generally ban athletes -- it's the various ADAs and ADOs that do.
"Why TF would it do that?" Good question. Let's answer that with another question: Which athlete successfully avoided a ban arguing that they performed worse? Hint: None, because performance, or lack of performance, is simply not a consideration when determining rule violations. WADA never needs to prove the effectiveness of the drug, because of this magical word "potential" they never have to justify, and ADAs and ADOs do not have to prove the drugs had any effect, positive or negative.
You keep making assumptions about the experts like "physicians and pharmacists have identified how the drugs could likely aid athletic performance through their effect on physiology", yet you realize that they do not rely on what experts usually rely on -- peer reviewed conclusions -- because these papers largely don't exist. Note also that physicians and pharmacists are also not coaches, so don't have any practical experience.
Once again, here is what the experts have to go on:
"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."
Please remember that a common mutation reducing lactate clearing is beneficial for sprinters and ultrarunners, maybe even in marathon. So don't use bicarb unless you run the distances where it is actually beneficial!
All those are performance enhancing - but drugs aren't. WADA is clearly banning the wrong substances.
Maybe some drugs are peformance enhancing. WADA doesn't concern itself too much with establishing that.
You mean they don't ask the dopers to demonstrate how effective the drugs are? But WADA does take the advice of medical and pharmacological experts on the effects the drugs have, as well as coaches and others involved in the sport about how the drugs are being used and why. So that isn't showing much concern about establishing whether the drugs are performance enhancing? So what else can WADA do or should it do when the dopers don't volunteer that information? Go to the bottom of the class again. You're at home there.
Experts know what you clearly don't. I'll go with them.
Experts said for years that the 4 minute mile was impossible. You would have gone with them.
You do know that "experts" are not a species who all think the same thing? So medical and pharmacological experts don't know about the effect of drugs they have been involved in developing and using? Pilots are experts at flying aeroplanes. But to you they are the same as the "experts" who wrongly predicted about the 4 minute mile. You're obviously no expert.
BS. So WADA is banning athletes who are running slower from taking drugs? Why TF would it do that? You're unbelievable. The drugs are being used for performance enhancement - there is no other reason for athletes using drugs or medicines for which they have no ailment - and physicians and pharmacists have identified how the drugs could likely aid athletic performance through their effect on physiology. But you see no more performance enhancement in any banned drugs than from consuming a banana. You are the worst propagandist ever on this site - and that's saying a lot with the deranged political threads here.
For your education, WADA doesn't generally ban athletes -- it's the various ADAs and ADOs that do.
"Why TF would it do that?" Good question. Let's answer that with another question: Which athlete successfully avoided a ban arguing that they performed worse? Hint: None, because performance, or lack of performance, is simply not a consideration when determining rule violations. WADA never needs to prove the effectiveness of the drug, because of this magical word "potential" they never have to justify, and ADAs and ADOs do not have to prove the drugs had any effect, positive or negative.
You keep making assumptions about the experts like "physicians and pharmacists have identified how the drugs could likely aid athletic performance through their effect on physiology", yet you realize that they do not rely on what experts usually rely on -- peer reviewed conclusions -- because these papers largely don't exist. Note also that physicians and pharmacists are also not coaches, so don't have any practical experience.
Once again, here is what the experts have to go on:
"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."
More garbage from the doping propagandist. The sports regulatory bodies under WADA'S rules ban athletes for using proscribed drugs. They don't have to prove the athletes benefited from using the drugs - an utterly impractical and even impossible objective. That does not mean the athletes did not benefit. They probably did, as that was the reason they were using the drugs. The drugs that are banned are known by WADA to have performance enhancing capacity - which is also the reason why the athletes use them and the drugs are banned.
You discount the knowledge that medical and pharmacological experts have about drugs that their professions have been involved in developing, yet who else would know better what the drugs are intended for and what their effects are likely to be? It certainly wouldn't be a blindfolded idiot denier like yourself. What reinforces the knowledge that the medical and pharmacological experts have is the fact the coaches, trainers and athletes choose to use these drugs. No expert is going to see a drug used for performance enhancement that they know could not possibly have that effect. Their views are indicative of what the drugs can do and how they might be used. And that is how they are being used by athletes. If the experts can gauge the effects of the drug on human physiology and the potential thereby for performance enhancement, and it becomes known that athletes are using it for those reasons, that's a pretty sound basis for saying the athletes are seeking advantage through doping. But not to a jerk like you, who thinks doping is nothing more than a placebo and coaches, athletes and trainers are too stupid to see this. You - who have no experience of any of this - know better than WADA medical experts and the countless athletes who have doped.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Maybe some drugs are peformance enhancing. WADA doesn't concern itself too much with establishing that.
You mean they don't ask the dopers to demonstrate how effective the drugs are? But WADA does take the advice of medical and pharmacological experts on the effects the drugs have, as well as coaches and others involved in the sport about how the drugs are being used and why. So that isn't showing much concern about establishing whether the drugs are performance enhancing? So what else can WADA do or should it do when the dopers don't volunteer that information? Go to the bottom of the class again. You're at home there.
I don't mean anything more than WADA says.
You are the one imagining what these experts consider behind closed doors.
More garbage from the doping propagandist. The sports regulatory bodies under WADA'S rules ban athletes for using proscribed drugs. They don't have to prove the athletes benefited from using the drugs - an utterly impractical and even impossible objective. That does not mean the athletes did not benefit. They probably did, as that was the reason they were using the drugs. The drugs that are banned are known by WADA to have performance enhancing capacity - which is also the reason why the athletes use them and the drugs are banned.
You discount the knowledge that medical and pharmacological experts have about drugs that their professions have been involved in developing, yet who else would know better what the drugs are intended for and what their effects are likely to be? It certainly wouldn't be a blindfolded idiot denier like yourself. What reinforces the knowledge that the medical and pharmacological experts have is the fact the coaches, trainers and athletes choose to use these drugs. No expert is going to see a drug used for performance enhancement that they know could not possibly have that effect. Their views are indicative of what the drugs can do and how they might be used. And that is how they are being used by athletes. If the experts can gauge the effects of the drug on human physiology and the potential thereby for performance enhancement, and it becomes known that athletes are using it for those reasons, that's a pretty sound basis for saying the athletes are seeking advantage through doping. But not to a jerk like you, who thinks doping is nothing more than a placebo and coaches, athletes and trainers are too stupid to see this. You - who have no experience of any of this - know better than WADA medical experts and the countless athletes who have doped.
You say now: "They don't have to prove the athletes benefited"
Before you said: "he (who me?) who has argued "performance enhancement" are grounds for imposing a ban"
I argue the first point -- and apparently so do you. I don't know where this second point comes from. But you said both.
The decision to ban an athlete is completely decoupled from any discussion about the potential to enhance performance, or whether any benefit was realized.
I will consider "the knowledge that medical and pharmacological experts have" when they publish it, and not based on your speculations. In the meanwhile, the question remains undecided with WADA's guidance of "potential".