Drugs in other sports and the media.

RichN95.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

so you are still perfectly happy with the number of pro athletes who have asthma?

Yes. It's a common result of pushing the body to it's limits. There's loads of research covering it. But I guess you've had enough of experts.

RichN95.

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Interesting that he taught his athletes how to fail an asthma test and so get access to the relevant meds

Where do you get that? It's not in the reasoned decision. There is no mention of asthma at all as far as I can see (search)

Lauren Fleshman has detailed it in interviews.

My point is that the doping expert is convinced that asthma medication is performance enhancing

It is if you have asthma, like Fleshman did. It stops asthma attacks.

But the doping expert wanted her to take it all year, when she only had issues at the height of pollen season.

No, she says in that interview that she had exercise induced asthma, not pollen related asthma. Presumably as a full time athlete she exercises all year round.
Having failed the test for pollen/allergy asthma test the doctor suggested optimising all the factors for triggering asthma before doing it next time. That's sensible.
Understanding of EIA has increased a lot in the past 15 years. (it's not strictly asthma - it's an asthma trigger). It seems to me that the test didn't recognise it, so it had to be passed off as pollen asthma instead.

kingstongraham

RichN95 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Interesting that he taught his athletes how to fail an asthma test and so get access to the relevant meds

Where do you get that? It's not in the reasoned decision. There is no mention of asthma at all as far as I can see (search)

Lauren Fleshman has detailed it in interviews.

My point is that the doping expert is convinced that asthma medication is performance enhancing

It is if you have asthma, like Fleshman did. It stops asthma attacks.

But the doping expert wanted her to take it all year, when she only had issues at the height of pollen season.

No, she says in that interview that she had exercise induced asthma, not pollen related asthma. Presumably as a full time athlete she exercises all year round.
Having failed the test for pollen/allergy asthma test the doctor suggested optimising all the factors for triggering asthma before doing it next time. That's sensible.
Understanding of EIA has increased a lot in the past 15 years. (it's not strictly asthma - it's an asthma trigger). It seems to me that the test didn't recognise it, so it had to be passed off as pollen asthma instead.

Might be a different interview.

https://www.propublica.org/article/elit ... erformance

Alberto and the doctor had different ideas of how you should use the medication, right?

There were three dosage levels of Advair ... and the highest one is for extreme situations. So when I came to the doctor I was really flared up ... so he didn't think it was a bad idea to start with that to calm things down, then the idea was to change to something lower ... because there are side effects to those medications. But Alberto very clearly pointed out that he felt the glucocorticosteroid could have a positive effect, so why not take the highest dose. And he didn't really talk about side effects or anything. I looked that stuff up on my own later, because I got thrush, and it also gave me kind of bad breath, from the thrush ... That really took me by surprise, but he didn't really seem worried about any of that stuff.

And what about in terms of the times of the year that he wanted you to take it?

The doctor said to take it during pollen season, which overlaps with peak competition season, and then to either not take it the rest of the year or phase it down to the lowest dose.

And Alberto?

His recommendation was to take it year round.

And in terms of the method of administration, could you explain a little bit about Alberto's suggestion?

The doctor told me breathe it in my mouth, hold it for 10 seconds, and then breathe out normally. And Alberto said to breathe it in, hold it, and then breathe it out your nose slowly, because then you expose the glucocorticosteroid to the nasal passages as well. And the theory is if it's supposed to open up your passages, then it will open up your nasal passages too, and make sure that every single passage the air could come down is maximally opened.

RichN95.

KingstonGraham wrote:

Might be a different interview.

https://www.propublica.org/article/elit ... erformance

No. Same interview. I quoted the first question earlier.

The bottom line is she genuinely had EI asthma and the doctor advised her to take the best available treatment. I don't see the problem with this. Sports people aren't interested in this should fix the problem, they want this will fix the problem.

Salazar may well have had the attitude of 'we'll take anything we legally can', but it doesn't change the fact that asthmatics need asthma medication.

kingstongraham

RichN95 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Might be a different interview.

https://www.propublica.org/article/elit ... erformance

No. Same interview. I quoted the first question earlier.

The bottom line is she genuinely had EI asthma and the doctor advised her to take the best available treatment. I don't see the problem with this. Sports people aren't interested in this should fix the problem, they want this will fix the problem.

Salazar may well have had the attitude of 'we'll take anything we legally can', but it doesn't change the fact that asthmatics need asthma medication.

The point was that he viewed it as performance enhancing even when it wasn't required to treat/avoid asthma symptoms, and when taken in ways different to that recommended by the doctor.

RichN95.

KingstonGraham wrote:

The point was that he viewed it as performance enhancing even when it wasn't required to treat/avoid asthma symptoms, and when taken in ways different to that recommended by the doctor.

He thought it 'could' have some benefit. He was advising using the most potent medication for a genuine condition available in the hope that it would add something, but also to make sure it fixed the problem. Research shows that it doesn't (WADA even dropped the need for a TUE). But nothing was being faked and rules weren't being broken (in this case).

Everyone should want the best available treatment

As for the prescribing doctor. He wasn't a sport doctor. If sportsmen listened to them, they'd hardly ever play. Look at riders cycling on with broken bones and sickness. Is that standard medical advice?

larkim

Beetroot is performance enhancing and isn't required to keep me alive and isn't illegal. Substitute "beetroot" with "asthma meds" and I think it all becomes clearly legal (assuming you think asthma meds are performance enhancing, a matter for which there is less proof than beetroot juice).

larkim

sherer wrote:

r0bh wrote:

larkim wrote:

I'm a serial Mo defender, and a bit of an NOP denier, so feel free to take what I write with a pinch of salt - but read the outcome document (133 pages of it!) and I think you'll get a different impression, certainly of that testosterone issue.

Yeah, if you have a look at the reasoned decision it is pretty weak stuff really :?

This is the closing paragraph:

The Panel notes that the Respondent does not appear to have been motivated by any bad intention to commit the violations the Panel found. In fact, the Panel was struck by the amount of care generally taken by Respondent to ensure that whatever new technique or method or substance he was going to try was lawful under the World Anti-Doping Code, with USADA’s witness characterizing him as the coach they heard from the most with respect to trying to ensure that he was complying with his obligations. The Panel has taken pains to note that Respondent made unintentional mistakes that violated the rules, apparently motivated by his desire to provide the very best results and training for athletes under his care. Unfortunately, that desire clouded his judgment in some instances, when his usual focus on the rules appears to have lapsed. The Panel is required to apply the relevant law, the World Anti-Doping Code and its positive law enactments in the rules of international sports federations, in discharging its duty, and here that required the Panel to find the violations it did.

Not sure i'll get the time to read the whole report. Im reading this as saying he broke the rules, but none of that was intentional and didnt try and dope athletes.

That seems at odds with what I read on BBC and the Panorama documentary

Funny that.

And every other commentator who for various reasons believes that Salazar is the spawn of the devil and Nike his evil paymaster.

The reality is that he has been convicted of doping related matters, and sanctioned accordingly. But the actual offences are so far away from being doping of athletes that it's not even remotely logical to go around accusing him of some of the things that the BBC are still putting in print (and indeed USADA have done too).

It might be an "Al Capone" scenario, but given the length of the case and the seemigly full disclosure of info between the parties, it doesn't feel like it to me. That's not stopping a whole heap of anti-Nike / anti-NOP athletes jumping on the bandwagon of beating up Salazar, and also drawing (flawed) connections to the performance of his athletes, current and past.

I've lost the will to argue this in places like LetsRun or on some running facebook groups though as I'm in a small minority that (IMHO) has rationally thought this through!

kingstongraham

RichN95 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

The point was that he viewed it as performance enhancing even when it wasn't required to treat/avoid asthma symptoms, and when taken in ways different to that recommended by the doctor.

He thought it 'could' have some benefit. He was advising using the most potent medication for a genuine condition available in the hope that it would add something, but also to make sure it fixed the problem. Research shows that it doesn't (WADA even dropped the need for a TUE). But nothing was being faked and rules weren't being broken (in this case).

Everyone should want the best available treatment

As for the prescribing doctor. He wasn't a sport doctor. If sportsmen listened to them, they'd hardly ever play. Look at riders cycling on with broken bones and sickness. Is that standard medical advice?

So a professional sports outfit sent a professional athlete to a non-sports doctor to provide expert treatment for exercised induced asthma, then decided to misuse the prescribed treatment in order to get the "best available treatment". That doesn't sound great.

gweeds

Radcliffe and Betsy Andreu getting into it on the twitters.

https://twitter.com/betsyandreu/status/ ... 0418351108

kingstongraham

The bit with Salazar that sticks in my mind is Dathan Ritzenhein being told about the increased cancer risk from the calcitonin only after he had been taking it for four years.

bflk

Telegraph however point out about Paula...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2 ... radcliffe/

kingstongraham

bflk wrote:

Telegraph however point out about Paula...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2 ... radcliffe/

I do enjoy the BBC's seeming requirement to add to any mention of Salazar being Farah's ex-coach that "there are no allegations of misconduct by Farah". Hmmm.

RichN95.

bflk wrote:

Telegraph however point out about Paula...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2 ... radcliffe/

But why is there are requirement to be impartial? It's a sports programme, not the news. Farah isn't running of PM and the BBC audience aren't ruling on Salazar. Radcliffe is just giving her opinion, which is formed by biases just like everyone else's opinions. What next? Is Gary Lineker supposed to pretend he's not a Leicester fan?

RichN95.

KingstonGraham wrote:

So a professional sports outfit sent a professional athlete to a non-sports doctor to provide expert treatment for exercised induced asthma, then decided to misuse the prescribed treatment in order to get the "best available treatment". That doesn't sound great.

People are free to use prescribed medicine any way they please . The medicine was legitimately prescribed for a legitimate malady.

kingstongraham

RichN95 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

So a professional sports outfit sent a professional athlete to a non-sports doctor to provide expert treatment for exercised induced asthma, then decided to misuse the prescribed treatment in order to get the "best available treatment". That doesn't sound great.

People are free to use prescribed medicine any way they please . The medicine was legitimately prescribed for a legitimate malady.

They are, but if it required a TUE, then using it in a way that is not consistent with medical advice could in my view be legitimately described as an abuse of the TUE system.

ddraver

RichN95 wrote:

EI Asthma.

See I read this as EL ASTHMA, as in a Spanish variant of asthma, and it was just better...

bobmcstuff

Los Asthmaticos

RichN95.

Salvador 'Sal' Butamol

gweeds

Paula Roidcliffe

Alejandrosdog

Gweeds wrote:

Paula Roidcliffe

LOLOLOL

darkhairedlord

The Russian field athletes tested positive for Hammeroids

bompington

It may or may not be cycling, and you could call it doping.
So not quite sure where to put this...

I can't be the only person who finds this story ridiculous yet entirely unsurprising.

gweeds

DCRainmaker has more info:

“ But let’s set that aside for a second. Cam comes out and says what he did was unethical. And initially I assumed he had perhaps done a ride or two and just left the simulator in the background running and bulked up. But when I reached out to Zwift, it was a wee bit more serious than that. Here’s what they had to say (official on the record quote):

“In-game data indicated, among other things, that Cam Jeffers had ridden on multiple occasions at 2000 watts for over 200km with a weight of 45kg, and had also logged on in multiple locations over a short period of time (Cheadle, Plymouth and Denmark, etc.) Zwift detected a bot in the system to falsify power data and unlock the Tron bike.”

“The historic ride data of the rider in question had not been saved after each activity was completed and therefore did not show on initial checks.“

To me, that’s a wee bit more than just padding one’s account to meet the 50,000 meters climbed goal (something that realistically Cam could have probably easily done anyway in normal riding). What he did was going well out of his way to cheat. He used various tactics to hide his location (or potentially enrolled friends in other locations), he faked his weight, and went to un-human wattage level-durations and distance. Atop all that, he cleverly discarded the rides so others wouldn’t notice. By doing exceedingly high wattage rides with a low weight, he’d be able to very efficiently rack up the required amounts, with less time on the platform for someone to notice”

The comments on this tool’s YouTube channel are hilarious. The usual commentards saying they still believe in him. Like he’s some sort of cycling god.

This is the same bloke who had a go at Nikki Harris when she said she didn’t consider e-racing actually racing like an actual race (true). He came out saying she had no idea and that he’s inspired thousands of people to take up riding etc etc.

Many people pointed out he was aiming his comments at a multiple national champ and maybe he should SFTU.

r0bh

Gweeds wrote:

What he did was going well out of his way to cheat. He used various tactics to hide his location (or potentially enrolled friends in other locations), he faked his weight, and went to un-human wattage level-durations and distance.

This bit kinda baffles me, surely Zwift could easily filter out rides which are clearly faked?

RichN95.

He's done Zwift a favour. If they want this to be a success they need to find all the security weaknesses. They should hire him.
For weight, surely it can't be hard to sell Zwift licences through LBSs where they weight you, valid for a year. If people want to starve themselves for that weight-in, then more fool them. But I suppose people would still use other people's IDs.

ddraver

I still think treating it with distain is easier...

twotoebenny

People losing their sh!t over a computer game demonstrates just how fcuked up the world has become.

gsk82

TwoToeBenny wrote:

People losing their sh!t over a computer game demonstrates just how fcuked up the world has become.

It shows how pathetic a lot of the people new to cycling are. Hopefully they'll piss off and take up rollerblading, or whatever the next cool activity is, sometime soon.

Alejandrosdog

gsk82 wrote:

TwoToeBenny wrote:

People losing their sh!t over a computer game demonstrates just how fcuked up the world has become.

It shows how pathetic a lot of the people new to cycling are. Hopefully they'll wee-wee off and take up rollerblading, or whatever the next cool activity is, sometime soon.

Yet sadly the UCI and BC and various commercial organisations are working together not only to court them but to give their garage exploits credibility and equivalence.