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/astmam...-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
).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram