Re:
movingtarget said:
I think the jury is out on the benefits of Salbutamol........
respectfully, i tend to
believe the opposite. note the word i used. imo the various medical and scientific (particularly those applied in anti-doping) hard numeric thresholds for the class of meds are essentially other opinions that happened to morph into loose guidelines b/c some studies prevailed at this stage.
in other words, we don't know ENOUGH yet on the all-important triad (the doze, the frequency and the route of administration) to draw the definitive conclusions re. many anti-asthma meds. more - many more - good quality studies are needed to close this chapter in the medical textbooks...
the real effect is all over the place...sorry for a personal example, but a cold climate i grew up in seem to NEVER give me the asthmatic symptoms many of my compatriots seem to fall a victim to. even in my immediate family 2 of my 5 siblings take the meds while none of our parents did. more over, i just returned from a high-mountain vacation where the air was both dusty and filled with 'whatnot'...still. a perfectly normal breathing then and now.
the trick of our individual biochemistry and the COMPLETE effect of the anti-asthma meds is yet to be discovered.
think, why else would wada consider it doping vs not (and the criteria has moved) ? why many studies point to the anabolism and imo particularly poorly understood stimulating effects ?
in one word, undoubtedly there are some athletes there that could take the stuff in the allowed dozes and forms and to clearly performance benefit ! discovering the effects, they will lie and use the anti-doping uncertainty to dope legally.
i have to proof, but i do believe that sundby is an example. good for him but i am glad he was caught during one of his acts of overdosing. that the norwegian medical staff and their fed did their utmost to cover him, spin and actually fight wada tooth and nail may point to a very ugly reality....