The statistics in the papers they cite look a little suspicious to me. In the abstract of the first paper referenced, they report that beetroot juice (BR) “reduced systolic blood pressure (129 ± 9 vs. 124 ± 10 mmHg, P < 0.01).” I don't have access to the whole article, so couldn't evaluate their statistics for certain, but I find it hard to believe that a 4% decrease with a larger SD is significant at the 0.01 level. Likewise for reduction of oxygen cost of moderate intensity running (2.26 ± 0.27 and 2.10 ± 0.28 l/min), severe intensity running (3.77 ± 0.57 and 3.50 ± 0.62 l/min), and time to exhaustion of severe intensity running (7.6 ± 1.5 and 8.7 ± 1.8 min). They claim all these differences are significant at the 0.01 level, yet for comparison, the Qmax difference (0.93 ± 0.05 and 1.05 ± 0.22 mM/s), which is about as large with comparable SDs, is not significant. Doesn’t add up.
Same thing for the second paper cited, a time trial study. BR significantly increased mean PO during the 4-km (PL = 279 ± 51 vs BR = 292 ± 44 W, P < 0.05) and 16.1-km TT (PL = 233 ± 43 vs BR = 247 ± 44 W, P < 0.01). The statistics look flawed to me.
To be fair, even a very small increase in power output would be helpful to a racer, and there wouldn’t seem to be anything to lose by drinking this stuff. The difference in TT times they report would correspond to about a minute in a 40 min. race, obviously a significant advantage. The problem is that the high variability suggests that the effect is hardly uniform, that different riders would experience greatly different benefits, probably in some cases little or not benefit at all.
Finally, if this really works, should it be banned? Does the fact that nitrate is a "natural" substance matter? If some rider with access to new science can go faster not through more training, but simply through taking a substance that other riders don't know about, is that a violation of the spirt of athletics or not? Could make for a very lively debate.