Doping

You are reading a single comment by @gbj_tester and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

deleted

some interesting nuggets of infor in the Guardian q+A:

There is no evidence that this substance has any beneficial effect on performance, lets try to keep a sense of perspective.

Sean replies:

User avatar for seani Guardian staff seani 14 December 2017 1:38pm
There are two points worth making in response here:

1) There is a limit set by the World Anti-Doping Agency and Chris
Froome has exceeded it by twice the permitted out.

2) There is some evidence that Beta 2 Agonists can improve performance
(See here: Inhaled Beta2-Agonist Increases Power Output and Glycolysis
during Sprinting in Men.) I was also speaking to a sports scientist
yesterday who made the point that a lot of those studies claiming no
benefit to Beta 2 Agonists do not use particularly relevant (to elite
sport) dosages of the drug under investigation and most importantly
use a performance measure (like VO2max) that is irrelevant to an
athlete like Froome.

•

gbj_tester in reply to @deleted

a lot of those studies claiming no
benefit to Beta 2 Agonists do not use particularly relevant (to elite
sport) dosages of the drug under investigation

Depends what you're trying to prove. Most of the studies I've seen are testing the performance enhancing effect of therapeutic doses of inhaled drugs, to determine whether giving TUEs to asthmatics has unintended consequences. Testing large systemic doses (e.g. 4-8mg orally) is a different matter, but that kind of regime would be an out of competition thing, you'd have to be unbelievably stupid to keep it up in the racing season.

use a performance measure (like VO2max) that is irrelevant to an
athlete like Froome.

Did I miss a meeting? Surely VO₂max is pretty relevant to a GC contender.

•

Jimmy_Fingers in reply to @gbj_tester

Surely if there is plenty of debate and testing that leads to ambiguities about whether something is performance enhancing or not, probably means it isn't. Sounds like caffeine or beetroot juice are more performance enhancing than salbutamol.

This is all very strange, and all rather depressing. I think the leak has done Froome a great disservice: let the investigation run its course and give us an outcome, positive or negative, and issue a sanction on the rider if guilty. Instead we get an immediate guilty assumption from all corners that will always stain the rider's reputation. I tried to ask a question about the ethics of reporting on the leak and prejudicing the investigation but it wasn't answered. I was snarled at by one person saying 'I bet you defended Lance'. But it's not a defense: I'm struggling to understand what exactly this all means, I mean even if the authorities decide against him it's not a doping positive, as the substance isn't banned. There's no performance advantage to be gained from it, it just seems now Froome is a considered a doper even though he didn't dope.
•

deleted in reply to @gbj_tester

Did I miss a meeting? Surely VO2max is pretty relevant to a GC contender.

I think the implication was that focusing exclusively on the effect of Salbutamol on V02 Max on someone who already has an exceptionally high scores is not relevant and you should instead be testing how how it might improve other physiological responses.

Saying that salbutamol doesn't increase your V02 Max is not the same as saying it's not performance enhancing. Quick google-fu turned up this which also indicates that V02 capacity being the primary limitation of performance in elite athletes might be inaccurate, seems fairly well argued.

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html

Doping

About

LFGSS