I can see arguments this way:

If something lets you train more, provide more stimulus without discomfort and helps you recover quicker then it's likely that you'll be a stronger athlete because of it.

And...

If something lets you race without discomfort and you can tolerate the side effects then it's possible you could race faster.

There are probably other arguments for and against pain killers as well.

That's fair and probably applicable to some. I just haven't seen many high level athletes who are actually held back by pain or discomfort. It's practically a trope that athletes will train through painful injury for so long that they do real lasting damage.

As a thought experiment: if you took a pro triathlete and somehow removed their ability to feel pain, would you expect their performance ceiling to increase?

The last time Cody Beals posted here he disclosed his pre-race routine with included a concoction of painkillers. Everyone ripped him and he never posted again.

In racing, probably not since we're all going sub-threshold for anything over a sprint distance. There's a limit to how much we can fuel our muscles.

For training to be better? If we could recover from the workouts...likely for some since we are allowed to fail during workouts.

I have no scientific data to back that up. I know if my back didn't hurt I could get a lot more training done.

There is a book titled "Endure' by Alex Hutchinson. One of the chapters is on pain and pain tolerance, and he talks about athlete performance. If I remember correctly, when painkillers are taken then performance rises.

It was ibuprofen... The guy had a bum Achilles and he took two ibuprofens before the race. Everyone freaked out.

---

What's your CdA?