That seems to be a fair statement. The IOC supplement survey paper posted by Dr. Coggan around a week ago chose this literature survey summary: "Enhanced performance (∼2%) of short-term, high-intensity sprints lasting ∼60 s in duration, with a reduced efficacy as the effort duration exceeds 10 min"

Dr. Kern's study was unable to find any TT benefit at 5 minutes or 1 hour.

The Source Endurance non-clinical study and some other studies show benefit in #-of-intervals-to-exhaustion, with the intervals being very short, e.g. 20-30 seconds. E.g. in the Source Endurance study the test population was able to complete 17 30-second intervals vs. 13.6 in the control. (with 20 seconds rest)

So the totality of evidence so far suggests that sodium biocarbonate is near useless for any TT-style effort beyond 10 minutes. So doesn't seem to make sense for triathletes, time-triallists, or runners who go longer than 3-5K. I mean "near useless" in terms of direct performance benefit. I'm not counting DOMS reduction or other purported benefits from chronic use.

In terms of "endurance sports" it might make sense for roadies who may have to repeatedly dip into 30-second max-type efforts while attacking (or covering attacks). The type of racing that most closely matches short-intervals-to-exhaustion studies might be track racing. Points racing, madison, and miss-n-out races all involve doing things very much like short, intense intervals with some rest in between. Madison in particular.

I have a few packets I got for free. I'l try them out in my track points races and give my n=1 results....although it'll be near useless feedback since points race success is dominated by situational tactics.