Doping in XC skiing

Page 140 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
Re:

Great post, Discgear!

Ortho2034 said:
I'm not sure if this is the best thread for it but can anyone address the "Asthma medication only makes your lungs work normally, it will do nothing if you are not asthmatic." argument that is routinely floated? On the one hand, that argument sort of makes sense to me. On the other, non-asthmatic elites wouldn't be using this stuff if it didn't help.
It's presented as fact, right? But they are cherry-picking studies.

This is a WADA-funded one from 2014: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.12298/

Some highlights:
Two-week administration of salbutamol increased (P < 0.05) peak power during first and second Wingate test by 6.4 ± 2.0 and 4.2 ± 1.0%. Neither acute nor 2-week administration of salbutamol had any effect on MVC, exercise performance at 110% of VO2max or on isometric endurance. No differences were observed in the placebo group. In conclusion, salbutamol benefits athletes' sprint ability. Thus, the present study supports the restriction of oral salbutamol in competitive sports.
Although therapeutic inhalation of salbutamol still is allowed in competitive sports, future studies should investigate effects of inhaled beta2-agonists on sprint performance and muscle strength to rule out an ergogenic effect. From a pharmacological perspective, it seems plausible that inhaled beta2-agonists could be performance-enhancing on peak power during maximal sprinting. Indeed, Kalsen et al. (2013) recently demonstrated that combined inhalation of beta2-agonists within the current WADA thresholds increased arm sprint ergometer performance. Furthermore, Decorte et al. (2013) also recently demonstrated that inhalation of only 800 μg salbutamol increased quadriceps endurance. As such, athletes might unfairly benefit from salbutamol, even when used within the current limits on the list of prohibited substances.
And this study was actually performed on elite endurance athletes.

Who recently improved his sprinting again?
 
Mar 22, 2014
10
0
0
Ah, I see. In addition to equivocal studies you'd of course also have variable effects on each individual allowing you to make an argument either way. Thanks.
 
Re: The press conference

Discgear said:
Let’s analyze how Johnsrud Sundby and the Norwegian Ski Federation handled the press-conference, smoke-screens and outright lies. As a base I will use the English document they handed out to the press describing the “case”,
http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/The%20Case%20-%20Engelsk%20versjon%20av%20Dette%20er%20saken[4].pdf
and the press-release, http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/1.2%20Pressrelease%20%28english%29.pdf plus some comments in the conference.

Martin Johnsrud Sundby has used the necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses.
Lie: The permitted dose according to WADA regulations is 1600 mg/day. MJS used 15000 mg in a time-span of 5,5 hours just before a race.
Thats what this case is about. NSF and USADA btw believed that the following text: “Dosage of Salbutamol: WADA advise that the maximum dose of inhaled Salbutamol is 1,600mcg in 24 hours." Meant that the inhaled dose is what you inhale, not what you put in the inhaler. This is what a doctor I assume does when he/she measures the appropriate dosage for his/her patients. Wada However wanted it to be the dosage that you put into the device, not what you inhale that is the allowed dosage. For treating patients I assume, this does not make that much sense, but for making it easy to control the adherence to anti doping rules, it makes very much sense. Hence we have the likely source of confusion.

So the Question is, inhalation of 1500ug, or putting 15000ug in the nebulizer? The minimum dosage available for putting in a nebulizer is 2500ug. That means if Wadas interpretation is used, it would not be allowed to use a nebulizer at all without a TUE. Alas the guidelines do not mention anything about nebulizers.

Discgear said:
From the pressrelease:
The inhalation was administered by a nebulizer, where studies show that approximately 10 percent of the dose installed in the device, actually is inhaled and reaches the body.
This is actually not true and a part of the smokescreen. As an example, http://patient.info/doctor/nebulisers-in-general-practice states that many nebulizers are highly inefficient and distributes down to ten percent of the dose.
Firstly, I doubt that MJS and the NSF medical team are using the most ineffective nebulizers available.
Looks like it is true. From your example It says: "Nebulisers are highly inefficient and many deliver only 10% of the prescribed drug dose to the lungs." The text you "quote" ""many nebulizers are highly inefficient and distributes down to ten percent of the dose. " does not exist. The text saying only 10% is in you link, but the text saying down to ten percent is not.

Are your quoting errors an unconcious attempt to massage the facts in a direction that suits you, or are they a concious attempt to alter the facts to face your specific narrative?

As for what type of nebulizer they are using, this does not seem to be an issue in the CAS case, so I would assume that their nebulizer only delivers 10%. Remember the nebulizer likely wasn't chosen for it's efficiency, but perhaps for comfort, ease of use and portability.

Discgear said:
Secondly the systemic effects of Salbutamol use are well-known.
Salazar and his highly successful Nike Oregon project with runners like Mo Farah and Galen Rupp have been using asthma-medication extensively. Following is a testimony from runner Lauren Fleshman https://www.propublica.org/article/elite-runner-had-qualms-alberto-salazar-asthma-drug-performance:
“He 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, making sure that every single passage the air could come down is maximally opened"
At least we could suspect that this information is well-known for MJS and his team doctor. Nebulizer is in this sense a much better way to expose yourself systemically with Salbutamol doses than a metered-dose inhaler.

In the Norwegian press-release (not the English) NSF ski president Erik Røste states that Martin has not achieved any competitive advantages through his use of Ventoline.
This is bold (false) statement considering following comments from Fleshman and the instructions from Salazar when she got permission to use asthma medication:
“After I got the medication, Alberto explained ‘this is going to be great for you; so many athletes once they got on this, did so much better than they’d ever done before’."
“He described the ways that could happen, that there’s a glucocorticosteroid in Advair and the possibility some of that could get systemically into your body and give you an advantage, and you can legally take it because you have asthma."
“Alberto encouraged me to push to be on the highest dose of it year round, which was something different than what the doctor had said."
It is also a bold statement considering an article published in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter as early as 1993, http://www.dn.se/arkiv/sport/astmamedicin-ger-anabol-effekt-ny-undersokning-baddar-for-het-dopingdebatt/:
"New research shows that Salbutamol (chemical name on Ventoline) in tablet-form, in surprisingly short time, increases muscle strength considerably on young men".

MD Torbjörn Conradsson on Draco, the company who is marketing Bricanyl: "It’s hard to understand that one [tablets] is forbidden and the other [spray] is allowed. If you’re using spray a number of times it gives a similar effect as the tablets. If you want to dope with inhalator, you can".

Bertil Nyborg expert on Glaxo the company who is marketing Ventoline: "We have been doing testing that shows it has a performance-enhancing effect also on healthy people"
You could accuse Norwegian Ski Federation and Johnsrud Sundby of many things. Naivity is not one of them. They are in the fore-front of athletic research. Their explanations are actually intellectually insulting.
The systemic effects of salbutamol are well known. That is why the max dosages are set where they are set. To be sure there are no systemic effects.
I'll thrust Wada about that more than Salazar who has an interest in hyping up the effectiveness of his methods towards his customers.

And your argument: "Nebulizer is in this sense a much better way to expose yourself systemically with Salbutamol doses than a metered-dose inhaler."

Says who? I would think the metered dose inhaler would be better since it's efficiency is much higher than the nebulizers 10%.

Erik Røste saying that MJS had not achieved any competitive advantages through his use of Ventoline. Is a correct statement. At least acording to FIS and CAS and IIRC Wada as well.

What you are saying is that all of them are lying, because Salazar says otherwise and he is trusthworthy and they are not. I don't know about you but I prefer to take the medication my doctor prescribes rather than what my drug dealer says I need.

As for the Dagens nyheter article from 1993!?

Did it not occur to you that the quoted research was known to those who wrote the WADA Code? Perhaps they found new research in the past 20 or so years that disproves the quoted research. It's not like researchers don't want other researchers to read their research.

As for NSF and MJSs explanations being intellectually insulting. I find your arguments and use/misuse of quotes intellectually insulting.

Discgear said:
Finally CAS asked the NSF to answer the following questions:
1. A comprehensive list of all the medication (including dose and mode of
administration) taken by the Athlete before commencing the course of nebulized
salbutamol further to the call with Dr. Knut Gabrielsen on 7 December 2014.
2. A comprehensive list of all medication (including dose and mode of
administration) taken by the athlete from the commencement of the course of
nebulized salbutamol until 8 January 2015.
3. The prescription(s)1
in respect of the salbutamol taken by nebulization in
December 2014 and January 2015.
4. The name of the pharmacy where the salbutamol was purchased.
5. Proof of purchase of the salbutamol (e.g. sale receipt).
6. The precise name and model of the nebulisation equipment used.
7. The name of the outlet or hospital where the nebulization equipment was
purchased or sourced (as the case may be).
8. Proof of purchase (or sourcing) of the nebulization equipment.
9. Records of delivery of the salbutamol and the nebulization equipment to the
Athlete (e.g. courier receipts).
10. Contemporaneous evidence that the Athlete and/or his medical team analyzed
in advance whether the nebulization of 15,000 micrograms of salbutamol would
come within the permitted use of salbutamol on the Prohibited List.
Norwegian Ski Federation and Martin Johnsrud Sundby refused, but said they if need be, to make oral
submissions.
Please observe that this is Norway refusing to help investigate doping and not Russia!
Wrong again. They did address it.

Ok so you read point 42 (page 28). which reads:
On 7 December 2015, the Second Respondent confirmed to the CAS Court Office
that it would not submit an answer in accordance with Article R55 of the Code, but
that it would exercise its right to attend the hearing and, if need be, to make oral
submissions.

And just ignored point 43(page 29) which said:
On 22 December 2015, the First Respondent lodged with CAS his answer in
accordance with Article R55 of the Code, together with 30 exhibits, which included
statements of Professors Carlsen dated 15 December 2015 (the “Fourth Carlsen
Report”), Bjermer dated 13 December 2015 (the “Sixth Bjermer Report” and
Chrystyn dated 17 November 2015 (the “Fourth Chrystyn Report”). The First
Respondent’s answer addressed also the Appellant’s request for disclosure.


Dude one is bellow the other!

It never occurred to you to check who the respondents referred to as the First Respondent and Second Respondent were?

The last sentence under point 43: The First
Respondent’s answer addressed also the Appellant’s request for disclosure.
didn't tip you off?

Here, I'll quote who the respondents are, from the First page of the CAS report:
MARTIN JOHNSRUD SUNDBY
Represented by Ms Anne-Lise Rolland, Attorney-at-law in Oslo, Norway
First Respondent
FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE SKI (FIS)
Represented by Dr Stephan Netzle, Attorney-at-law with TIMES Attorneys in Zurich,
Switzerland
Second Respondent
If all these arguments, misquotes and misreadings of yours are not intentional, you have a serious problem with your reading comprehension being about what you want something to say instead of what it actually says.

I catch my self mis-comprehending from time to time myself, but this is just ridiculous.

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award__FINAL_.pdf
 
Blaaswix said:
Aftenposten has an article, behind a paywall unfortunately, but with the headline "69% of Norwegian olympic cross country medal have been won by skiers with asthma"http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/langrenn/--69-prosent-av-norske-OL-medaljer-i-langrenn-er-tatt-av-lopere-med-astma-788032_1.snd

Ho hum.
This is a typical tabloid trick. They say 69% of the Norwegian Medals in XC were won by asthmatics. You now believe this is a huge problem only Norway has. It seems only Norwegians can have asthma and compete at the top of the sport.

But what if I told you that 100% of the gold winners in mens cross country skiing at the 2014 Sochi Olympics have asthma: I Know that Cologna, Legkov, Olsson and Hattestad have Asthma, and if my google fu/google translate skills are correct, so does Jauhojärvi. That's 100% on the mens side. I didn't bother with the women side.

As far as I understand you can have asthma from childhood or you can get asthma from ventilating a lot of cold/polluted air. The more you train and ventilate, the more likely you are to develop problems. And the more you train the better you will become.

So those who have won have likely trained a lot, meaning they have a high risk of developing asthma.
 
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
Re: The press conference

ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
Let’s analyze how Johnsrud Sundby and the Norwegian Ski Federation handled the press-conference, smoke-screens and outright lies. As a base I will use the English document they handed out to the press describing the “case”,
http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/The%20Case%20-%20Engelsk%20versjon%20av%20Dette%20er%20saken[4].pdf
and the press-release, http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/1.2%20Pressrelease%20%28english%29.pdf plus some comments in the conference.

Martin Johnsrud Sundby has used the necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses.
Lie: The permitted dose according to WADA regulations is 1600 mg/day. MJS used 15000 mg in a time-span of 5,5 hours just before a race.
Thats what this case is about. NSF and USADA btw believed that the following text: “Dosage of Salbutamol: WADA advise that the maximum dose of inhaled Salbutamol is 1,600mcg in 24 hours." Meant that the inhaled dose is what you inhale, not what you put in the inhaler. This is what a doctor I assume does when he/she measures the appropriate dosage for his/her patients. Wada However wanted it to be the dosage that you put into the device, not what you inhale that is the allowed dosage. For treating patients I assume, this does not make that much sense, but for making it easy to control the adherence to anti doping rules, it makes very much sense. Hence we have the likely source of confusion.

So the Question is, inhalation of 1500ug, or putting 15000ug in the nebulizer? The minimum dosage available for putting in a nebulizer is 2500ug. That means if Wadas interpretation is used, it would not be allowed to use a nebulizer at all without a TUE. Alas the guidelines do not mention anything about nebulizers.
I think they have succeeded already, making this about the nebulizer. Cause at the end of the day, the athlete is responsible for what goes into his or her body. MJS tested 1,340ng/mL and 1,360ng/mL salbutamol in his urine – and the WADA limit is 1000ng/mL.

The statement "necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses" cannot simply be true.

MJS took the risk of using nebulisation where other doses are required, and by doing so he better be pretty sure on what he actually is getting in – especially when he does it over five hours instead of 24.
 
Re: The press conference

kosmonaut said:
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
Let’s analyze how Johnsrud Sundby and the Norwegian Ski Federation handled the press-conference, smoke-screens and outright lies. As a base I will use the English document they handed out to the press describing the “case”,
http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/The%20Case%20-%20Engelsk%20versjon%20av%20Dette%20er%20saken[4].pdf
and the press-release, http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/1.2%20Pressrelease%20%28english%29.pdf plus some comments in the conference.

Martin Johnsrud Sundby has used the necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses.
Lie: The permitted dose according to WADA regulations is 1600 mg/day. MJS used 15000 mg in a time-span of 5,5 hours just before a race.
Thats what this case is about. NSF and USADA btw believed that the following text: “Dosage of Salbutamol: WADA advise that the maximum dose of inhaled Salbutamol is 1,600mcg in 24 hours." Meant that the inhaled dose is what you inhale, not what you put in the inhaler. This is what a doctor I assume does when he/she measures the appropriate dosage for his/her patients. Wada However wanted it to be the dosage that you put into the device, not what you inhale that is the allowed dosage. For treating patients I assume, this does not make that much sense, but for making it easy to control the adherence to anti doping rules, it makes very much sense. Hence we have the likely source of confusion.

So the Question is, inhalation of 1500ug, or putting 15000ug in the nebulizer? The minimum dosage available for putting in a nebulizer is 2500ug. That means if Wadas interpretation is used, it would not be allowed to use a nebulizer at all without a TUE. Alas the guidelines do not mention anything about nebulizers.
I think they have succeeded already, making this about the nebulizer. Cause at the end of the day, the athlete is responsible for what goes into his or her body. MJS tested 1,340ng/mL and 1,360ng/mL salbutamol in his urine – and the WADA limit is 1000ng/mL.

The statement "necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses" cannot simply be true.

MJS took the risk of using nebulisation where other doses are required, and by doing so he better be pretty sure on what he actually is getting in – especially when he does it over five hours instead of 24.
Yes Wada won, and inhale means what you put in the apparatus, not what you inhale that counts. The case infront of FIS anti doping adressed the amount and how he would only have taken 1500ug.(decision limit is 1200ug).

I think Sundby won the case because he could prove that he would only have used 1500ug and still reach the level of salbutamol in his urin. And that since they too felt the rule was unclear gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The CAS tribunal just went with the what you put in the aparatus, and then could ignore all the science and research indicating Sundby didn't inhale more than 1500ug as prescribed by the doctor. Hence they look at 15000ug and say it's above the limit without having a TUE.IIRC Sundby had the same problem in 2009 and got a TUE for it because any salbutamol use required a tue at that time.

"
The statement "necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses" cannot simply be true."
It's a question of semantics. The NSF, USADA, FIS antidoping panel thought that it was true, and the WADA didnt.

Thats the hole point of the case. It's about where what consists a dose is measured. The label on the box, or what you actually inhale. CAS went with the label on the box, rendering what Sunby actually inhaled irellevant.

MJS did what he had always done: do what the team doctor tells him to do, and apply for a TUE when needed. The doctor would tell him when he should apply for a TUE. The doctor screwed up and took the blame, while Sundby gets punished. Should Sundby have assured himself that the NSF team doctor understood the rules? I think CAS found that to be unreasonable, and hence only gave him a 2 months ban.
 
Re: The press conference

ToreBear said:
kosmonaut said:
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
Let’s analyze how Johnsrud Sundby and the Norwegian Ski Federation handled the press-conference, smoke-screens and outright lies. As a base I will use the English document they handed out to the press describing the “case”,
http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/The%20Case%20-%20Engelsk%20versjon%20av%20Dette%20er%20saken[4].pdf
and the press-release, http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/1.2%20Pressrelease%20%28english%29.pdf plus some comments in the conference.

Martin Johnsrud Sundby has used the necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses.
Lie: The permitted dose according to WADA regulations is 1600 mg/day. MJS used 15000 mg in a time-span of 5,5 hours just before a race.
Thats what this case is about. NSF and USADA btw believed that the following text: “Dosage of Salbutamol: WADA advise that the maximum dose of inhaled Salbutamol is 1,600mcg in 24 hours." Meant that the inhaled dose is what you inhale, not what you put in the inhaler. This is what a doctor I assume does when he/she measures the appropriate dosage for his/her patients. Wada However wanted it to be the dosage that you put into the device, not what you inhale that is the allowed dosage. For treating patients I assume, this does not make that much sense, but for making it easy to control the adherence to anti doping rules, it makes very much sense. Hence we have the likely source of confusion.

So the Question is, inhalation of 1500ug, or putting 15000ug in the nebulizer? The minimum dosage available for putting in a nebulizer is 2500ug. That means if Wadas interpretation is used, it would not be allowed to use a nebulizer at all without a TUE. Alas the guidelines do not mention anything about nebulizers.
I think they have succeeded already, making this about the nebulizer. Cause at the end of the day, the athlete is responsible for what goes into his or her body. MJS tested 1,340ng/mL and 1,360ng/mL salbutamol in his urine – and the WADA limit is 1000ng/mL.

The statement "necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses" cannot simply be true.

MJS took the risk of using nebulisation where other doses are required, and by doing so he better be pretty sure on what he actually is getting in – especially when he does it over five hours instead of 24.
Yes Wada won, and inhale means what you put in the apparatus, not what you inhale that counts. The case infront of FIS anti doping adressed the amount and how he would only have taken 1500ug.(decision limit is 1200ug).

I think Sundby won the case because he could prove that he would only have used 1500ug and still reach the level of salbutamol in his urin. And that since they too felt the rule was unclear gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The CAS tribunal just went with the what you put in the aparatus, and then could ignore all the science and research indicating Sundby didn't inhale more than 1500ug as prescribed by the doctor. Hence they look at 15000ug and say it's above the limit without having a TUE.IIRC Sundby had the same problem in 2009 and got a TUE for it because any salbutamol use required a tue at that time.

"
The statement "necessary and legal anti-asthmatic medicine Ventoline (salbutamol) in permitted doses" cannot simply be true."
It's a question of semantics. The NSF, USADA, FIS antidoping panel thought that it was true, and the WADA didnt.

Thats the hole point of the case. It's about where what consists a dose is measured. The label on the box, or what you actually inhale. CAS went with the label on the box, rendering what Sunby actually inhaled irellevant.

MJS did what he had always done: do what the team doctor tells him to do, and apply for a TUE when needed. The doctor would tell him when he should apply for a TUE. The doctor screwed up and took the blame, while Sundby gets punished. Should Sundby have assured himself that the NSF team doctor understood the rules? I think CAS found that to be unreasonable, and hence only gave him a 2 months ban.
Giving him a two month ban in the summer is a joke, though. I mean, I know you are biased, Tore, but a two month ban in the summer is essentially a non ban. Yes he was stripped of his results and his overall wc, but 2 months during the off season is nothing. It's just a cute way of saying, here you go, you've been naughty, here's a ban that makes it seem like we are doing something meaningful. If they were so desperate for a two month ban, they should have given it to him in december and january, when the actual doping infringement took place.
 
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
Re: The press conference

ToreBear said:
MJS did what he had always done: do what the team doctor tells him to do, and apply for a TUE when needed. The doctor would tell him when he should apply for a TUE. The doctor screwed up and took the blame, while Sundby gets punished. Should Sundby have assured himself that the NSF team doctor understood the rules? I think CAS found that to be unreasonable, and hence only gave him a 2 months ban.
Good post, and I see your points until this paragraph, which is speculation or blindly believing what you are being told by NSF. We don't know that he did what he always have done, or even listened to his doctor. We have no way of knowing exactly what happened, so we should lean on facts.

We've seen various people getting thrown under the bus in doping cases many times before that we should be open to the idea that it can happen again. NSF number one priority is having the Norwegian people worshiping them to keep the cash flowing, and that cannot happen if your nr1 man gets busted and blaimed.

They spent 1,5 years preparing for this, so it's reasonable to think that they are doing whats best for their own future. Exhibit A being the press conference. After all that time keeping a lid on the whole thing, when the verdict comes they spend another 9 days preparing before calling for a "rush press conference" with only an hour or two notice, making journalists come unprepared to do their only interview. They put on a ridiculous show with demos and bashing CAS, and in the goodie bag of a press release they present a PDF of the CAS verdict that has be altered so it's non-searchable. It's sickening.

I don't know what happened, but given how NSF is handling the case I see no reason to believe that they are telling the absolute truth. That's why I'm glad he got the ban by CAS.

And for the last bit: "Athletes are responsible for everything that goes into their body".
 
Re: The press conference

BullsFan22 said:
Giving him a two month ban in the summer is a joke, though. I mean, I know you are biased, Tore, but a two month ban in the summer is essentially a non ban. Yes he was stripped of his results and his overall wc, but 2 months during the off season is nothing. It's just a cute way of saying, here you go, you've been naughty, here's a ban that makes it seem like we are doing something meaningful. If they were so desperate for a two month ban, they should have given it to him in december and january, when the actual doping infringement took place.
Point 120 page 56, from the Cas paper:
Having regard to all of the circumstances of the case, that is in light of its objective
and subjective elements, and especially the fact that there was medical justification
for the Athlete’s use of salbutamol, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the
Athlete’s degree of fault was light and accordingly warrants the imposition of a
sanction shorter than the standard measure for such cases, in this instance of two
months ineligibility.
The Ban entered into effect when the ruling went into effect. If they had ruled in November you likely would have gotten your wish.
 
Re: The press conference

kosmonaut said:
ToreBear said:
MJS did what he had always done: do what the team doctor tells him to do, and apply for a TUE when needed. The doctor would tell him when he should apply for a TUE. The doctor screwed up and took the blame, while Sundby gets punished. Should Sundby have assured himself that the NSF team doctor understood the rules? I think CAS found that to be unreasonable, and hence only gave him a 2 months ban.
Good post, and I see your points until this paragraph, which is speculation or blindly believing what you are being told by NSF. We don't know that he did what he always have done, or even listened to his doctor. We have no way of knowing exactly what happened, so we should lean on facts.

We've seen various people getting thrown under the bus in doping cases many times before that we should be open to the idea that it can happen again. NSF number one priority is having the Norwegian people worshiping them to keep the cash flowing, and that cannot happen if your nr1 man gets busted and blaimed.

They spent 1,5 years preparing for this, so it's reasonable to think that they are doing whats best for their own future. Exhibit A being the press conference. After all that time keeping a lid on the whole thing, when the verdict comes they spend another 9 days preparing before calling for a "rush press conference" with only an hour or two notice, making journalists come unprepared to do their only interview. They put on a ridiculous show with demos and bashing CAS, and in the goodie bag of a press release they present a PDF of the CAS verdict that has be altered so it's non-searchable. It's sickening.

I don't know what happened, but given how NSF is handling the case I see no reason to believe that they are telling the absolute truth. That's why I'm glad he got the ban by CAS.

And for the last bit: "Athletes are responsible for everything that goes into their body".
I'm open to the idea of everything. But the CAS case seems to show that this was a mistake by the team doctor. But he was not the only one to make that assumption. Usada had the same understanding. I'm unable to get any kind of conspiracy out of this.

The doctor should have applied for a TUE. He didn't. He made a mistake and he took the responsibility he felt was his.

As for the press conference, I haven't seen it and I downloaded the Cas verdict from the Cas website. I wanted to read it without so many preconceptions. (Ok, I was watching the tour at the time and had to prioritize :p ).
 
BullsFan22 said:
Harsh words from the anti-doping chief in Finland:

http://www.langrenn.com/mener-norges-skiforbund-boer-dopingetterforskes.5894298-1743.html

i know Finland has had its fair share of doping problems in the past, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Interesting that the head of medicine at the Finnish AD should say this. I wonder if Norwegian anti doping would take that as Finnish Anti doping insinuating that they don't know what they are doing. It does not seem to me that he knows what he is talking about, but if WADA were to come and investigate, I'm sure NSF would be fine with that. If they would have problems with that it would be interesting.

But, I'm not counting on it since Wada are likely going to see it as a waste of resources. And despite me being interested in the result I would agree with their resources being used for more pressing issues.
 
Re: The press conference

ToreBear said:
The CAS tribunal just went with the what you put in the aparatus, and then could ignore all the science and research indicating Sundby didn't inhale more than 1500ug as prescribed by the doctor. Hence they look at 15000ug and say it's above the limit without having a TUE.IIRC Sundby had the same problem in 2009 and got a TUE for it because any salbutamol use required a tue at that time."
Good to see you again ToreBear, although you continue to go ad hominem in responding. I will soon adress your comments to my long post from two days ago. For the time being I just have one question: If a Nebulisator only distributes 10 percent of the dose, how much of the dose does an ordinary inhaler distribute? 100%?
 
ToreBear said:
BullsFan22 said:
Harsh words from the anti-doping chief in Finland:

http://www.langrenn.com/mener-norges-skiforbund-boer-dopingetterforskes.5894298-1743.html

i know Finland has had its fair share of doping problems in the past, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Interesting that the head of medicine at the Finnish AD should say this. I wonder if Norwegian anti doping would take that as Finnish Anti doping insinuating that they don't know what they are doing. It does not seem to me that he knows what he is talking about, but if WADA were to come and investigate, I'm sure NSF would be fine with that. If they would have problems with that it would be interesting.

But, I'm not counting on it since Wada are likely going to see it as a waste of resources. And despite me being interested in the result I would agree with their resources being used for more pressing issues.

There wasn't much grumbling regarding the SVT made documentary "Blodracet" three years ago, and when there was some, they laughed it off, including the ones that were in the documentary. That's not just the Norwegians, btw, a few other foreign athletes that were interviewed or the ones that SVT tried to talk to, laughed it off and denied. It's interesting though, the amount of these top athletes that have asthma, irrespective of the medicine they use or don't use. Apparently Legkov has asthma as well, unless I misread...
 
Re: The press conference

First, my interest in this subject is my background. I'm having severe asthma problems since early childhood. I've been in hospitals for emergency treatment with Nebulisators and since maybe 25 years I've been inhaling bricanyl and symbicourt and similar medicins just for daily need. I was a talented athlete and the best thing I knew was XC-skiing. In the 70s asthma wasn't very well documented and treated. I always blamed myself for failing so severly in XC-competetions during my early school years. I went into other sports, involving balls and puck, sports where you could sit down when you couldn't catch breath. I simply do not believe that anyone with real asthma problems would have any possibility being prominent in aerobic sports, thus being able to make it into junior championships and nationals. One of my goals in life is to one day being able to complete a Wasaloppet. Not sure if it ever will be possible.

ToreBear said:
As for what type of nebulizer they are using, this does not seem to be an issue in the CAS case, so I would assume that their nebulizer only delivers 10%. Remember the nebulizer likely wasn't chosen for it's efficiency, but perhaps for comfort, ease of use and portability.
You clearly have a strong belief in the NSF and Johnsrud Sundby. This is from the CAS verdict concerning the claims of only 10 percent distribution of the dose being distributed with Nebulisator:
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.
Further on you could read how MJS/NSF and their expert prof. Carlsen responded to this:
a statement of Professor Carlsen dated 23 July 2015 (the “Third Carlsen Report”), also replying to Dr Kinahan, and indicating, inter alia, that“ it is correct that this administration [a nebulised dose of 15,000 μg salbutamol administered over 5 hours] would ordinarily not been used in a regular maintenance therapy of well - controlled asthma. However, MS has had a severe asthma from early childhood. ... MS has a reduced lung function as compared to most competitive athletes. Therefore, the statement of dr. Kanahan that athletes have high lung function values and therefore high lung deposition values of inhaled drugs is not relevant to MS. I therefore do not agree in her statement that the data from the Mazhar study is not relevant for MS”;
So here the expert claims - in defense of MJS - that he has a lung capacity similar to an elderly group with very poor lung function. :confused: Finally, WADA claims the following concerning the efficiency in Nebulisators (however unquoted):
However, scientific studies make it clear that at least 40% of salbutamol is available for inhalation.
ToreBear said:
Erik Røste saying that MJS had not achieved any competitive advantages through his use of Ventoline. Is a correct statement. At least acording to FIS and CAS and IIRC Wada as well.

What you are saying is that all of them are lying, because Salazar says otherwise and he is trusthworthy and they are not. I don't know about you but I prefer to take the medication my doctor prescribes rather than what my drug dealer says I need.

As for the Dagens nyheter article from 1993!?

Did it not occur to you that the quoted research was known to those who wrote the WADA Code? Perhaps they found new research in the past 20 or so years that disproves the quoted research. It's not like researchers don't want other researchers to read their research.

As for NSF and MJSs explanations being intellectually insulting. I find your arguments and use/misuse of quotes intellectually insulting.
I will try to adress your outbursts in a mannered way. The scientists quoted in the DN article are in my opinion trustworthy, and I find it also interesting that Salbutamol was very much an issue already back in 1992 when Dählie and UIvang started the Norse domination of XC-skiing. Maybe you have missed it but Salbutamol is prohibited. Use of it is considered to be doping. Only exception is to treat asthmatic problems with inhalation of Salbutamol in restricted doses. Tablets are prohibited as well as to drink it. This is also from the CAS verdict:
As was convincingly explained to the Panel at the hearing, by the “singling out” for the purposes of the exception “inhalation”, in its revision of the Prohibited List, WADA intended to exclude the possibility for an athlete to ingest or inject salbutamol, since its “systemic administration” produces anabolizing effects, and therefore should
therefore not be allowed without a TUE.
Also:
Dr Rabin underlined that use of salbutamol beyond the limits allowed in the Prohibited Lists or its administration by ingestion or injection may have anabolizing effects
In this study from 2000 http://jap.physiology.org/content/89/2/430.full 12mg/day in three weeks showed a siginficant gain in endurance. And this dutch study from 2004 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzyWvJ0zpMgAYUJRcGM1azc3TG8shows increased performance for professional cyclists 30 minutes after inhaling 800 mikrogram of Salbutamol. Just compare this to the doses that MJS took just before the race! :eek:
So, maybe I'm not insulting your intellect but your Norwegianess? :)

ToreBear said:
Here, I'll quote who the respondents are, from the First page of the CAS report:
MARTIN JOHNSRUD SUNDBY
Represented by Ms Anne-Lise Rolland, Attorney-at-law in Oslo, Norway
First Respondent
FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE SKI (FIS)
Represented by Dr Stephan Netzle, Attorney-at-law with TIMES Attorneys in Zurich,
Switzerland
Second Respondent
If all these arguments, misquotes and misreadings of yours are not intentional, you have a serious problem with your reading comprehension being about what you want something to say instead of what it actually says.

I catch my self mis-comprehending from time to time myself, but this is just ridiculous.

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award__FINAL_.pdf
Thank's Torebear for clarifying this. I did miss that the second respondent was FIS and that the first respondent was Johnsrud Sundby. I'm glad you corrected this. However, it doesn't really change the need for my final comment. Looking at all those strange maneuvers from NSF, FIS and Martin Johnsrud Sundby himself, I think my final comment (connected to this honest mistake) is still valid:
Please observe that this is Norway refusing to help investigate doping and not Russia!
 
BullsFan22 said:
Discgear said:
kosmonaut said:
This one is doing the rounds on Facebook (Norwegian): https://www.facebook.com/thomas.h.thoresen/posts/10157181454545721
It's a very good read with a lot of thoughtful questions and insight.

I can't open it. What sort of 'questions and insight' is in the post(s)?
Try this link instead! http://vgd.no/sport/vintersport/tema/1830125/tittel/sundby-utestengt/innlegg/45077789/#45077789

It’s highlighting some things from the CAS verdict. I can’t recall that the following has been talked about in the thread before. Pardon my translation:

• The athlete’s physician suggested that the result may be due to dehydration. Dr Fitch said that this explanation cannot be considered relevant
• Further on Dr Fitch: «Because he competed with success in many elite, cross-country skiing events in this period, it would appear that this condition could not described as "acute, severe asthma"»
• MJS had taken 15mg (15000mikrogram) daily one week before the first positive test and for one month before the second positive test
• In a letter from MJS to FIS hearing panel 8/2 2015 he writes: "I have never been advised that allowed doses has to be taken in any special manner".
• High doses of Salbutamol according to GINA guidelines should be reserved for emergencies. A nebulised dose of 15000 mcg administered over 5 hours would not be regarded as normal therapeutic inhaled use. Indeed it would seem that this occurred on a consecutive number of days
• Initially WADA asked for a two year ban
• WADA states that at least 40% of the dose is available in Nebulizers according to scientific studies.
• WADA say the studies “cherry-picked” and produced by the Athlete (chiefly the Mazhar Study) do not support his thesis
 
Discgear said:
BullsFan22 said:
Discgear said:
kosmonaut said:
This one is doing the rounds on Facebook (Norwegian): https://www.facebook.com/thomas.h.thoresen/posts/10157181454545721
It's a very good read with a lot of thoughtful questions and insight.

I can't open it. What sort of 'questions and insight' is in the post(s)?
Try this link instead! http://vgd.no/sport/vintersport/tema/1830125/tittel/sundby-utestengt/innlegg/45077789/#45077789

It worked! Thanks for link! Very interesting stuff. Not something that you'll likely see in the headlines or the articles themselves in many mainstream media outlets. Also nice to see not all the Norwegians are toeing the line and throwing a pity party for Sundby, simply because he is Norwegian and 'he didn't do anything wrong.'
 
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/doping/eks-langrennsloeper-var-frisk-fikk-astmamedisin/a/23749728/

Finally someone speaking up. The highlight:

Siri Halle (44), junior world champ and on the Norweigan national team in the 90- and 00s, was advised to use Ventoline even though she never thought she had asthma.

– It wasn't said straight out that "now you'll gain a few seconds". What was said was that "you'll benefit from using this (Ventoline), you will gain time from using it", and "I recommend that you use this medicine.

– That being said, I remember I took one of those tests where I blew a little and a lot. Then they found some irritation there and that qualified to be some kind of asthma, or an irritation, enough to get Ventoline. I can today not understand that I was asthmatic, and I have not had problems breathing, but I cannot to this day understand how I could have the need for medicine.

Great work by VG. Is this just the beginning?
 
kosmonaut said:
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/doping/eks-langrennsloeper-var-frisk-fikk-astmamedisin/a/23749728/

Finally someone speaking up. The highlight:

Siri Halle (44), junior world champ and on the Norweigan national team in the 90- and 00s, was advised to use Ventoline even though she never thought she had asthma.

– It wasn't said straight out that "now you'll gain a few seconds". What was said was that "you'll benefit from using this (Ventoline), you will gain time from using it", and "I recommend that you use this medicine.

– That being said, I remember I took one of those tests where I blew a little and a lot. Then they found some irritation there and that qualified to be some kind of asthma, or an irritation, enough to get Ventoline. I can today not understand that I was asthmatic, and I have not had problems breathing, but I cannot to this day understand how I could have the need for medicine.

Great work by VG. Is this just the beginning?
The Berlin wall is coming down brick by brick.... My popcorn bag is starting to need a refill. Is Norwegian media finally starting to act like professional journalists and not just a supporter club? Hopefully it will also spread to the Swedish newspapers.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS