boyscouts come to chat wrote:
it's not gray zone if it's legal.
if Salazar or any other athlete on earth is using or experimenting with stuff that is legal, it's legal. end of conversation. it's up to the governing bodies to study it and declare it illegal. until then, use away. that's how it works. altitude tents, training at altitude, caffeine, spandex shorts, vaporflys etc
it's black or white.
do you guys say no to tax benefits because you think they might be ethical "grey zones" even though they are allowed?
no, no you don't. you save your money
same thing here.
I'd change this slightly. To "it's not cheating if it's legal"
To me "grey zones" are actions that are technically allowed under the regs, but against the intent of the regs. Examples would include using an IV of 99ml for recovery, using your friend's albuterol inhaler even though you don't have asthma because you think you'll run faster, or using thyroid meds to balance out training demands.
[As I said before I don't see caffeine as "grey zone" because it is implicitly sanctioned by many races. At some races, if you're going to use the gels provided on course, it's hard to find a gel that isn't caffeinated.]
I don't like using "performance enhancing" as a test because:
1) whether something is performance enhancing is not WADA's sole criteria for banning a substance.
2) as noted before, many legitimate substances are performance enhancing (water, electrolytes, sugar)
3) if you have a health condition, then of course the medications that treat your condition are likely going to be performance enhancing. (To me, the better question is whether a medication enhances your performance above and beyond correcting the health condition.)