Log in:  

Register

Doping in XC skiing

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky

06 Feb 2018 15:00

hasse sven says he is not done...more revelations are in the pipe
https://www.expressen.se/sport/os-2018/attacken-pa-norge-ar-som-nordkorea/
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,598
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Doping in XC skiing

06 Feb 2018 15:20

blueskies wrote:
BullsFan22 wrote:Yep, the Norwegians are such 'super men/women' that not even government sponsored doping programs can beat them....Give me a break.

Do people REALLY still think that? Really?

The higher you go in pro sport the higher the chances of doping. If all of these countries like Russia, France, Germany, Austria, Finland, Italy, etc had 'more' doping than the Norwegians and even the Swedes, wouldn't they be the ones dominating the sport? And please, let's not go back to the 2010/2011 debates on 'better grinds, better skis, better equipment, better culture, better food, etc.' Those are stories for little kids of beginners of the sport.


Except well known dopers have indeed beaten the norwegians and swedes and convincingly so.

Salt Lake City, Lahti to mention a couple.

A couple of other factors:

The norwegians generally perform worse in championships than in the world cup, while many of the athletes from suspected nations perform better during the championships.

The norwegians generally perform well during the entirety of their careers. Some of them are of course suspicious, which is to be expected in an era of free for all doping, just like some swedes are suspicious, but there's no indication of organized doping, and that notion is backed up by the data just released.

In 2001, the same expert that is behind these recent analyses, made a list of highly suspicious athletes based on blood analysis, this list it made it to the media. It had 12 athletes, no norwegians and no swedes. All 12 of them were later caught for doping. There's a pattern here. https://www.nrk.no/sport/--langrenn-er-renere-enn-pa-30-ar-1.7585215

XC skiing is a bigger sport in Norway than in any other country and by a big margin. The talent pool in Norway is considerably bigger than in any other nation. The best endurance talents often choose XC skiing.

You say shouldn't the dopers dominate the sport? Well, where did the italians go after the 90s? Where did the austrians go? These skiers were never talented enough in the first place. Skiers like Elofsson and Dæhlie were good enough to beat them cleanly. The norwegians have always been there. It's laughable one poster tried to assert that the norwegians came from "nowhere" in the early 90s :rolleyes: ; XC skiing is inherently a norwegian sport and has been dominated by norwegian skiers since its inception. in 1982, before any EPO era, Norway took 7 golds in the nordic skiing WC, before Soviet with 2 golds.



Proof?
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re: Doping in XC skiing

06 Feb 2018 16:18

BullsFan22 wrote:Yep, the Norwegians are such 'super men/women' that not even government sponsored doping programs can beat them....Give me a break.

Do people REALLY still think that? Really?

The higher you go in pro sport the higher the chances of doping. If all of these countries like Russia, France, Germany, Austria, Finland, Italy, etc had 'more' doping than the Norwegians and even the Swedes, wouldn't they be the ones dominating the sport? And please, let's not go back to the 2010/2011 debates on 'better grinds, better skis, better equipment, better culture, better food, etc.' Those are stories for little kids of beginners of the sport.

Glad to see that you are willing to acknowledge existence of government sponsored doping program in Russia. At least this point is settled now. We can now continue exchanging opinions about Norwegians.
PeterB
Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 20 Feb 2012 13:53

Re: Doping in XC skiing

06 Feb 2018 16:28

PeterB wrote:
BullsFan22 wrote:Yep, the Norwegians are such 'super men/women' that not even government sponsored doping programs can beat them....Give me a break.

Do people REALLY still think that? Really?

The higher you go in pro sport the higher the chances of doping. If all of these countries like Russia, France, Germany, Austria, Finland, Italy, etc had 'more' doping than the Norwegians and even the Swedes, wouldn't they be the ones dominating the sport? And please, let's not go back to the 2010/2011 debates on 'better grinds, better skis, better equipment, better culture, better food, etc.' Those are stories for little kids of beginners of the sport.

Glad to see that you are willing to acknowledge existence of government sponsored doping program in Russia. At least this point is settled now. We can now continue exchanging opinions about Norwegians.



I am glad you got the sarcasm.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,957
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

07 Feb 2018 06:50

Which team is taking 10 nebulizers to the olympics? And 6000 doses of asthma medicine?
https://www.nrk.no/sport/olympiatoppen-har-sendt-over-6000-doser-astmamedisin-til-ol-1.13880280
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

07 Feb 2018 09:10

Horses are said to be treated with asthma medicin to enhance performance. Likely/unlikely that performance benefits also applies on humans?

The Swedish skier with blood value anomalies still unnamed?

Will the Olympics XC event be a farce or a success?

Many questions, few answers.
Barkintheeye
New Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: 24 Feb 2015 17:58

07 Feb 2018 11:08

the norwegian media may be starting to take the latest svt/adr/british documentary more seriously. i could be mistaken, but vg.no is the 1st major media taking a more balanced approach. as they were in the sundby doping...some embedded links to the past discussions of the similar doping revelation, including the very defensive stance of their fed. i found very helpful for a total picture...

https://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/i/0EGVrJ/derfor-er-funnene-blodig-alvor
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,598
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re:

07 Feb 2018 12:42

Barkintheeye wrote:Horses are said to be treated with asthma medicin to enhance performance. Likely/unlikely that performance benefits also applies on humans?


Read the salbutamol thread. It is not only likely, it is proven by studies.
ppanther92
Junior Member
 
Posts: 274
Joined: 03 May 2015 10:27

Re: Re:

07 Feb 2018 13:09

ppanther92 wrote:
Barkintheeye wrote:Horses are said to be treated with asthma medicin to enhance performance. Likely/unlikely that performance benefits also applies on humans?


Read the salbutamol thread. It is not only likely, it is proven by studies.


It was a partially rhetorical question. Clearly with so many "asthmatics" there has to be some gains by using it.

Swedish press is now homing in on the suspicious skiers. Current update: a male and a female skier, both active and both belonging to the national team are the ones with suspicious blood values. Won't be too long before names are out... and the mudslinging can begin. However, the omerta in cycling cannot match the silence within XC-skiing (and soccer/track&field/etc)
Barkintheeye
New Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: 24 Feb 2015 17:58

07 Feb 2018 23:46

Saw the Swedish documentary. They seemed to have improved in their journalism(shouldn't be difficult). But then they wanted to talk about Norwegian asthma with misleading cutting, misleading questions, and omission of pretty essential facts.

Here we go again another Uppdrag Granskning special.

As for the suspicious blood stuff. Meh, the problem with measurement error seems to be more pronounced than I initially thought. Prior to 2004 there really was no consistency in anything except that they drew blood.

The impression I get is that all these suspicious cases have been followed up on by FIS. Some likely were tested more, some of those got caught. Other readings were just the result of measurement error or other non doping reason, and probably a few that got away.

It would be a great story if this was some big secret that FIS had buried for the good of the sport, but it isn't. It's just the results of samples taken at that time.

I found it interesting that Swedish media suddenly has noted that they also have a ski team full of asthmatics with interesting blood values. When the Norwegians reacted badly to being accused of doping, the swedes said they must be guilty because otherwise they wouldn't take it so personal. And now the Swedes are reacting in the same way.

Swedish press standards are really, really, really low. They make VG look like the New York Times. :o
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,649
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

08 Feb 2018 07:47

Things that came out about the asthma treatment, which haven't been adressed in media before, was that about 50% of the Swedish XC medals and 70% of the Norwegian medals in championships has been won by asthmatics. So I guess, it is fair to say asthma drugs are not an isolated Norwegian problem. What should be adressed more is what drugs are used, what practices and what levels.
In the SVT program it was also adressed that race horses - at least in Sweden - are frequently treated with Beta 2 agonists. When using the Johnsrud Sundby drug Ventoline, race horses aren't allowed to compete in 14 days. Also, they show clear anabolic effects. Less fat and more muscles. Further on, the program clearly showed how high WADA has set the limits. 1600 microgram per day is way beyond any normal treatment. The Danish lung doctor Vibeke Backer said that throughout her career she has never come across anything near those levels in practice. Remember Johnsrud Sundby 15 000 micrograms.
A lot has been adressed already in this forum, but has never reached a broader audience. I think the situation with race horses is quite telling. As mentioned by the Swedish vet, it is about fair play for the people betting on horse racing.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 376
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

08 Feb 2018 15:38

@Discgear

Asthma: The swedish number only counts those that have said publicly that they have asthma.
The Norwegian number uses VG as reference. There is no info in the program on which methology is used to get to that 70% number. I'm pretty sure the number for Swedes is higher than 50%. My impression is far fewer Swedes are open about it compared to the Norwegians.
The drugs used, practises for several countries is IIRC in the asthma comissions paper. I remember either from the pressor or the paper that the Swedes traditionally use more Beta 2 agonists than the Norwegians.
https://www.skiforbundet.no/contentassets/de0fe93897e34b2fa2c2cf71811a2c04/utvalgsrapport-15.2.2017.pdf

I don't think this asthma report and commision is even mentioned in the program. I wonder why...

Here we come to the problem with Swedish media standards. It was not clear whether they were talking about doses comparable to the 15000 micrograms or the 1600 microcgrams. That goes for both the doctor and the race horse dude. If they are talking about 1600 it is more interesting, but my guess is most of the takes were about 15000 micrograms. The problem is Sundby did not inhale 15000 micrograms, he inhaled 1500 micrograms. In order to be able to inhale 1500 micrograms per day he needed to put 15000 micrograms in the nebulizer. You should know this by now since I have pointed that out to you before.

So we now have thousands of Swedes stuck on the 15000 number instead of the 1500 number which is what he actally inhaled. That is a huge difference. This is called misleading your audience.

Here is another example of misleading your readers:
Here they are comparing apples to oranges. There were 2 Swedes and 3 Norwegians which had numbers either in the probability range of 1/1000 or 1/10000.
There were 16 Norwegians compared to 12 Swedes that fell within the 1/100 probability range.
16 norska skidåkare misstänks för doping, enligt dokumentären "OS – ett orent spel".

Marit Björgen slår tillbaka mot uppgifterna – men oroas samtidigt över dopingproverna som manipulerades under Sotji-OS.

– Jag har haft många tankar runt det, säger hon.

Det är i Uppdrag gransknings dokumentär "OS - ett orent spel" i Sveriges Television som två svenska landslagsåkare pekas ut för sina avvikande blodvärden.

Speciellt en manlig åkare anklagas för att vara misstänkt bloddopad.

Dokumentären har väckt stor uppmärksamhet dagarna innan olympiska spelen, och under gårdagen slog det svenska längdlandslaget tillbaka kraftigt.

– De anklagar två åkare på helt felaktiga grunder. Det är oerhört många brister i de argument man använder sig av, säger landslagsläkaren Per Andersson.

I samma dokumentär uppges att hela 16 norska skidåkare är misstänkta för doping, på grund av förhöjda blodvärden, under 2000-talet.

– Värdena från Norge tyder på en organiserad doping från förbundet, har dopingreportern Hasse Svens slagit fast.
https://www.expressen.se/sport/os-2018/bjorgens-oro-efter-dopingskandalen/


In the above article they say 16 norwegians are suspected of doping. They then talk about 2 Swedish national teem members pointed out as having deviant blood values.
So we have the comparison of 16 suspected norwegian dopers vs 2 Swedes with deviant blood values.

Suspected doper is a word that implies something a lot more serious than only having deviant bloodvalues. Yet the Swedes are are in the 1/1000 and/or the 1/10000 range. The wording should be the reverse if one wanted to be more acurate. It should be 16 Norwegians with deviant blood values vs 2 Swedish suspected dopers. (See how different reality is from what is presented to the reader?)

The actual comparable numbers are 16 Norwegians vs 12 Sweedes in the 1/100 range. And 3 Norwegians and 2 Swedes in the 1/1000 and/or the 1/10000 range.

So why is reality so different than what is written in the article?
This is either purposely misleading the reader for more shock value and hence more clicks. Or it is a result of incompetence. Either way, the reader is misled.

Uppdrag Gransking had a lot of time to get their story right in the cutting process. Since their omissions were not adressed in the program, I am left with the belief that Updrag Granskning is purposely misleading their audience.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,649
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

08 Feb 2018 17:38

In order to be able to inhale 1500 micrograms per day he needed to put 15000 micrograms in the nebulizer.

If you have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, yes, indeed you do. How much should an elite endurance athlete use, though? Somewhat less, as it turns out. And preferably, none at all.
The actual comparable numbers are 16 Norwegians vs 12 Sweedes in the 1/100 range. And 3 Norwegians and 2 Swedes in the 1/1000 and/or the 1/10000 range.

So Norway beats Sweden in the suspect blood profile competition. Oops.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

08 Feb 2018 17:56

ToreBear wrote:The Norwegian number uses VG as reference. There is no info in the program on which methology is used to get to that 70% number. I'm pretty sure the number for Swedes is higher than 50%.

I understand it might be difficult for you to grasp – as a Norwegian – that my quote from the SVT program was not a competition between Norway and Sweden about who being worst, but merely an emphasis that Norway is not alone in the Asthma explosion among champions. And this is truly sad for the XC-sport.
ToreBear wrote:The drugs used, practises for several countries is IIRC in the asthma comissions paper. I remember either from the pressor or the paper that the Swedes traditionally use more Beta 2 agonists than the Norwegians.

Source?
ToreBear wrote:Here we come to the problem with Swedish media standards. It was not clear whether they were talking about doses comparable to the 15000 micrograms or the 1600 microcgrams. That goes for both the doctor and the race horse dude. If they are talking about 1600 it is more interesting, but my guess is most of the takes were about 15000 micrograms. The problem is Sundby did not inhale 15000 micrograms, he inhaled 1500 micrograms. In order to be able to inhale 1500 micrograms per day he needed to put 15000 micrograms in the nebulizer. You should know this by now since I have pointed that out to you before.
So we now have thousands of Swedes stuck on the 15000 number instead of the 1500 number which is what he actally inhaled. That is a huge difference. This is called misleading your audience.

ToreBear, this is a good example of how you are acting in this thread. When your arguments are detronized you go into hibernation mode. Months or years later you show up again, either not remembering this have been addressed or simply hoping that your fellow thread companions are suffering severe oblivion. I did address this earlier (with references):

Just going through the mathematics: The CAS-verdict states that the limit of a 1600 microgram daily dose is with an inhaler, a MDI – metered dose inhaler. An often cited study claims that the efficiency of such a devise is about 10-20% of the dose reaching the lungs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1884297/
In reality the WADA limit hence is 160-320 microgram of beta-2 agonists reaching the lungs.

The logic of MJS and the NSF was that a Nebulizer only delivers 10% to the lungs, hence it was relevant with a dose of 15000 micrograms daily. According to one of the WADA experts (CAS-verdict) a Nebulizer distributes about 40% of the inserted dose to the lungs (however without citation). That would mean that Johnsrud Sundby over expanded period of times are deposing a dose of 6000 micrograms daily to the lungs (40% of 15000). That in other words is 20-40 times the allowed dose according to the intentions of the WADA rules.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 376
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re:

08 Feb 2018 18:31

ToreBear wrote:The actual comparable numbers are 16 Norwegians vs 12 Sweedes in the 1/100 range. And 3 Norwegians and 2 Swedes in the 1/1000 and/or the 1/10000 range.


The difference between "has at least one 1/100 probability off-score value" and "suspected doper" is not specified. Given how few skiers from the entire 00's are actually singled out as such (only Russia has more than 3) we can assume their profiles are quite f-ed up.

ToreBear wrote: Uppdrag Gransking had a lot of time to get their story right in the cutting process. Since their omissions were not adressed in the program, I am left with the belief that Updrag Granskning is purposely misleading their audience.


UG did not mislead their audience. Did you watch the docu? They showed the number of 99% offenders by country followed by the number of "suspected dopers" by country. They did not compare the norwegian 99 percenters to the swedish "suspected dopers".

The ****** tabloid Expressen are misleading their readers, UG are not.
John de Savage
Junior Member
 
Posts: 90
Joined: 15 Nov 2015 15:16

08 Feb 2018 20:36

@Discgear
I understand it might be difficult for you to grasp – as a Norwegian – that my quote from the SVT program was not a competition between Norway and Sweden about who being worst, but merely an emphasis that Norway is not alone in the Asthma explosion among champions. And this is truly sad for the XC-sport.

No it's not sad. It implies better health.
Source

Source. About the B2 agoinst it might have been at the pressor where they represented the report. You should read the report though.

ToreBear, this is a good example of how you are acting in this thread. When your arguments are detronized you go into hibernation mode. Months or years later you show up again, either not remembering this have been addressed or simply hoping that your fellow thread companions are suffering severe oblivion. I did address this earlier (with references):

Sorry but I don't have time for you trolling and rehashing the same points over an over. Which is how our last dialogue about this ended IIRC. My arguments were not detronized. The fact that others can argue longer over the same thing is not the same as them being right.

The manufacturer of the nebuliser IIRC reffered to the Mazhar study.

From page 63 in the arbitration award:
he proved that the AAFs were the result of a therapeutic inhaled dose lower
than the maximum allowed. In fact, the London Study confirms that he used
a nebulizer in Davos and Toblach, while the Oslo Study makes it possible to
calculate the ratio between inhalation through MDI + spacer and inhalation
through nebulizer (Davos = 1:11.30; Toblach = 1:13.00) and “this means that
the maximum calculated amount for Davos is 1450 micrograms and for
Toblach 1230 micrograms”. Such result corresponds broadly to the findings
of the Mazhar Study, which found a ratio 1:10 between MDI and nebulizer;
"


The nebulizer Sundby used had an efficiency of 10%. If other studies had 40% with a different nebulizer and different patient is not relevant to this case.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,649
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

08 Feb 2018 20:44

John de Savage wrote:
ToreBear wrote:The actual comparable numbers are 16 Norwegians vs 12 Sweedes in the 1/100 range. And 3 Norwegians and 2 Swedes in the 1/1000 and/or the 1/10000 range.


The difference between "has at least one 1/100 probability off-score value" and "suspected doper" is not specified. Given how few skiers from the entire 00's are actually singled out as such (only Russia has more than 3) we can assume their profiles are quite f-ed up.

ToreBear wrote: Uppdrag Gransking had a lot of time to get their story right in the cutting process. Since their omissions were not adressed in the program, I am left with the belief that Updrag Granskning is purposely misleading their audience.


UG did not mislead their audience. Did you watch the docu? They showed the number of 99% offenders by country followed by the number of "suspected dopers" by country. They did not compare the norwegian 99 percenters to the swedish "suspected dopers".

The ****** tabloid Expressen are misleading their readers, UG are not.


The point about Expressen is in their creative use of adjectives and numbers that are not comparable, used as if they were comparable. Suspected doper is only the word Expressen used. It is not based in fact. I would say that 1/10000 probability would fall under the suspected doper label if that label was to be used. Not the 1/100 label.

Regarding UG I was referring to the asthma part of the program. The other part they did fine(probably had help from ze Germans on that one).
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,649
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

08 Feb 2018 22:22

ToreBear wrote: My arguments were not detronized. The fact that others can argue longer over the same thing is not the same as them being right.

The manufacturer of the nebuliser IIRC reffered to the Mazhar study.

From page 63 in the arbitration award:
he proved that the AAFs were the result of a therapeutic inhaled dose lower
than the maximum allowed. In fact, the London Study confirms that he used
a nebulizer in Davos and Toblach, while the Oslo Study makes it possible to
calculate the ratio between inhalation through MDI + spacer and inhalation
through nebulizer (Davos = 1:11.30; Toblach = 1:13.00) and “this means that
the maximum calculated amount for Davos is 1450 micrograms and for
Toblach 1230 micrograms”. Such result corresponds broadly to the findings
of the Mazhar Study, which found a ratio 1:10 between MDI and nebulizer;

"


The nebulizer Sundby used had an efficiency of 10%. If other studies had 40% with a different nebulizer and different patient is not relevant to this case.


The quote from the CAS verdict is under the section where Johnsrud Sundby In support of his own position made arguments. Arguments that were heavily rejected by independent experts.
Kinahan, member of the WADA Prohibited List Expert Group questioned the whole Mazhar study since you can't compare the world's best skier to patients with sick old people with very poor lung function. Something which the Norwegian defense, and obviously also you, don't find problematic. From 32. iv
It cannot be accepted that 15000 mcg by nebulisation is
“bioequivalent” to 1500 mcg by MDI. The subjects in the Mazhar et al
study, which is referenced frequently, all had very poor lung function,
were much older and over one third of them had Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Airways Disease (COPD), so their breathing capacity could
be regarded as compromised.
Their physiology is significantly different
to that of an elite, young, male cross-country skier. Due to such
fundamental differences the same correlation between the two devices
cannot be made for an elite aerobically-fit athlete.

Evenso, if we accept that Johnsrud Sundby was only able to get the equal amount of Salbutamol in his lungs - as sick old people with very poor lung function - 10% of 15000 is 1500 microgram. That is still way beyond the intentions of the WADA limit, since they stated that the limits was set with inhalers in mind. And as a MDI – metered dose inhaler only provides 10-20% it would mean that the real limit is between 160-320 micrograms of Salbutamol deposited in the lungs. The study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1884297/

Further on, in the SVT program, Danish expert Vibeke Bakker said that the WADA limit of 1600 microgram is extreme. She has never come across any doctor ordinating anything close to that. In fact, the Swedish team doctor said that if any skier would have problems after inhaling more than 400 microgram/day they wouldn't be allowed to compete. So, it seems that ordinary medical practice is 10-20% of maximum 400 microgram, hence 40-80 micrograms in the lungs. You can do rest of the math in comparison with the Johnsrud Sundby practice.

But this has been the path you have taken from day one ToreBear. Repeating the arguments from the lawyers of Johaug and Johnsrud Sundby together with statements from the Norwegian Ski Federation. Ignoring every argument by independent experts.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 376
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Doping in XC skiing

08 Feb 2018 23:00

Torebear,
The logic and suppositions you've been making these past few pages is stunning.
For one thing, you're talking as though not only are some of the athletes in the suspicious group probably clean, but that skiers below the threshhold for "suspicious" are almost certainly clean.

Here's the description from the article: "The baseline for abnormal is any score that has less than a one in 100 chance of being natural. Many athletes were far beyond that point."

Another way to say this is that if you have 50 skiers in a race and they all have blood values that have a 1 in 50 chance of being "not doping." NONE would be on the suspicious list. But if you couldd give them all truth serum, you would learn that (on a statistical average) 49 of the 50 had indeed doped, and just one skier had the abnormal values due to a natural cause. But your logic would say "this was a clean race."
Last edited by Sciatic on 08 Feb 2018 23:08, edited 1 time in total.
Sciatic
Junior Member
 
Posts: 218
Joined: 04 Mar 2011 06:18
Location: Seattle, Washington

08 Feb 2018 23:03

@discgear
And you quoted from the other party.
As far as I can see from the case, they conducted studies on Sundby with the same dosage. The result was consistent with inhaled doses of 1500 micrograms.

The judgment about inhalers came as a result of this case. The US antidoping agency also had the same understanding of the rules as the Norwegians. The effect of that ruling is that Nebulizers are now no longer legal to use for ventolin without a TUE since the smalest dosage available is 2500 micrograms.

It is not clear from the program whether they have been asked questions about 15000 or 1600. The 1600 part is only specified to Vibeke Bakker when they talk about the rules generally, not in relation to Sundby specifically.

As I remember you had a problem with the independence of Kjell Larson the Swedish Asthma expert that tok part in the asthma commission. Something about collaborating on a study long ago. My conclusion from that is that you have a rather strange idea of who is independent or not.

I have gone through your arguments before. The problem about your understanding of The Johaug and Sundby cases is that neither cas verdict believed that they had any intention or doping effect. Yet you harp on about there being something. I really don't think I can explain this better than I have both now and previously.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,649
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 17 guests

Back to top