I know that. But just because a medication is prescribed does not mean it is legal to race with it. As has been mentioned here, there are many inhalers that are totally fine to use in competition unless you take an absurd number of puffs from it. But there are some that are prohibited. Even if you have a prescription.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

but isn't the idea that people without asthma can administer the drug and deliver MORE airflow to the lungs than they would get naturally? i'm not that familiar with the science behind it but isn't that why so many non-asthma sufferers get TUEs for asthma drugs?

No. The research shows it doesn't do anything to people without the bronchospasm associated with asthma (exercise-induced or otherwise).

"
Why would notoriously strict WADA downgrade these meds? Because several studies over the past few years concluded that asthma medications, also referred to as beta-2 agonists, had no significant, positive effects on performance. For example, a 2011 review of 26 studies on the effects of inhaled beta-2 agonists found that the medications did not improve “endurance, strength or sprint performance in healthy athletes.” In another study published in 2011, Belgian researchers wrote that taking salbutamol “does not affect exercise capacity in normal subjects.”
Leading up to the Beijing Olympics, news outlets suggested that the large number of elite athletes using inhalers, including silver medalist swimmer Dara Torres and gold medalist triathlete Emma Snowsill, signaled a potential abuse of asthma meds to get ahead. Amateur athletes, it seemed, were following suit, leaving a record numbers of inhalers behind at triathlon start lines.
http://www.outsideonline.com/...hance-my-performance

http://triathlon.competitor.com/...ake-you-faster_92365

I was stating that there isn't a moral or ethical equivalence between someone taking a banned substance which isn't a PED but banned (like cannabis) and someone who was part of what is essentially a cheating ring. Yes, they violated the same rules but they are not equivalent acts. I think it is reasonable to separate the two in this type of conversation because the penalties, implications, and future solutions are and should be different.

For race-day purposes it doesn't matter if they actually make you faster or not: if the inhaler contains a substance on the WADA list, you need a TUE.

If you think it shouldn't be on the list, that's a separate issue with a different avenue of action.

what you quoted isn't exactly persuasive. "no significant, positive effects on performance" doesn't mean that much to me. is a 1% gain in performance "significant"? at the tippy top of the sport, every little gain is big. "does not affect exercise capacity in normal subjects" also isn't exactly persuasive. people training 20+ hours per week (even at the age group level) are anything but "normal". normal to me means sedentary and sedentary uses a lot less oxygen than anyone training for an IM (not matter what level they are at).

the athletes usually are way ahead of WADA and how to best use drugs and i can't believe that thousands of olympic athletes have fallen for snake oil the way age groupers fall for compression socks or newtons.

Alrighty then.

But if you bust someone for DHEA only in a test, how do you know they were not also on EPO (i'm actually not sure if that is what it masks, but as an example), but you could not detect it because of the dhea?

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Well, they say that it can confuse the testosterone test but they haven't released any data to back that up. The reasoning is that if they test high for testosterone then they won't know if that is because of the DHEA or not - which I could accept; in that case if the levels of testosterone are normal but DHEA is flagged, is it reasonable to mete out the same punishment for that person as if they doped similar to the OP in this thread? I don't think so.

I am also unimpressed with testosterone being banned and having a very challenging TUE. If two people have the same testosterone (assuming it is in the normal range) - and one is the same because he is supplemented, aren't you simply leveling the playing field?

I am also unimpressed with testosterone being banned and having a very challenging TUE. If two people have the same testosterone (assuming it is in the normal range) - and one is the same because he is supplemented, aren't you simply leveling the playing field? //

So you are saying that everyone should be able to dope so that we can all race the same time? And keep in mind that normal range for lets say a 50+ year old is 250 to 1100+, or there a bouts. And also keep in mind that someone at 200 could feel and be much better than someone with 500. How you gonna reconcile all of those variables, provided that your idea of a "level playing field" is even in the interest of sport?

My understanding was that inhalers are abused among pros (cyclists in particular) because they have a stimulant effect. Notice how you can feel a bit shakey when taking a couple puffs for your asthma? Imagine a pro sprinter cyclist taking 15 puffs...... I believe thats what pro cyclist Petacchi was busted for.

Then we should normalize muscle mass, mitochondrial density etc.
It'll be like NASCAR for triathlon

There's a difference between taking something to correct an illness and taking something so that you feel like you did when you were 20.
If there is one of a few acceptable reasons for low testosterone, you can have a TUE. Otherwise, declining levels with age are a normal part of the aging process.

Such is life.

Additionally, Testosterone and EPO are very powerful, so they need to be regulated tightly. Further, No one who actually needs EPO is able to compete in sport.
However, there are people, like myself, who have used prednisone for legitimate reasons. Mine is that my body is attacking my liver. I may die from an autoimmune disease called Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis. At the least, I'll probably have a liver transplant. Trust me, when you're on high dose of corticosteriods and immunosuppressants, it doesn't help your exercise performance.

One of those situations is a bit easier to get a TUE than the other, for good reason.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

taking this one step further, why not let anyone who cannot maintain, say 300w, on the bike for an hour to put a little motor on his/her bike like the delivery guys have to get him/her up to the 300w level? it's just leveling the playing field in your book. we are in the age of everyone is a winner.

Eh, you note the age differences (first 2 are close together so they would have grown up going to the same school except for a couple transition years, while the 3rd is spaced ~10+ years later so he would have never gone to school with either of the others)? And, there's also a 4th brother... You have a large family w/ lots of siblings? People who don't might assume that most sets of brothers would all be similarly close to one another, but I don't see that being the case at all. I know several large families where a couple of siblings are super tight while others just happen to show up at the same parents' house for holidays, etc.

I'm not saying I believe anyone's particular story or not; only that I wouldn't simply assume that a 3rd brother would necessarily be close enough to know what the other 2 are cooking.

Your understanding is wrong.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Yes, raising my hematocrit to 52 is simply me leveling the playing field.

Sadly, I've had asthma long enough that I don't get shaky at all from a normal dose of albuterol. It takes a full on nebulizer treatment to make me shaky.

fortunately, WADA and USADA don't agree with you.

I'm with you on that Xtrapickles. I had five years on Prednisalone and other immonsuppressants and there is no way I'd go back to taking them voluntarily.
Also, off topic I'm in Boulder now. How good is this place?

Only 4 sanctions (so far)? I guess people aren't generally so stupid as to buy from a site that YELLS, "Get your Illegally obtained drugs here"

That said, I once may have bought a CPAP machine from Canada without a prescription.

I have never quite understood why someone with asthma - an unfortunate condition that reduces athletic performance - is different from, say, low testosterone - an unfortunate condition that reduces athletic performance. Why is one allowed to be medicated and another not, for the purpose of competitive sports?

We hear often on this site people saying things like, 'everyone is not born equally', and 'you have to compete with the body you were dealt with' or similar words to that effect - normally in the context of whether testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) should be allowed. Can someone explain why asthma is a condition that is allowed to be treated with what are technically drugs that enhance the sufferer's performance, but other conditions are not?

This article poses the same question, and discusses the issue, although the author expresses no opinion on what the answer should be.
http://breakingmuscle.com/...-replacement-therapy

I realize this is can be a controversial topic, and is probably an emotive issue for asthma sufferers. I'm not trying to be controversial - I genuinely don't understand why asthma gets what seems to be a 'free pass' as a condition.

And people that can't see well shouldn't use eye glasses or corrective lenses.

Don't even get me started on body reduction, like circumcision.

1) asthma is largely situational (especially the type we are talking about for most athletes - exercise induced asthma). Low testosterone is not. Low t is their "normal". This is not true with asthma.

2) the treatment if asthma (especially EIA) does not provide any additional performance benefit. It does not enlarge the airways to something more than their normal state. It just prevents the onset of an abnormal state.

3) where do you want to draw the line for the "race with the body you have" approach? Should we not allow people to wear corrective glasses so they can see properly? Poor eyesight is just an "unfortunate condition that reduces athletic performance", too.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I understand that, and there is some logic there. But what about when an athlete has a bad cold, or is injured (situational) and wants to take medicine to get them back closer to 'normal', but that medicine is banned? Assuming the medicine would not get them to 'above normal' why are these situations different? I know you can sometimes get TUEs for certain situational conditions, and maybe that is the answer here. But it seems TUEs are pretty rare to be given.

But not all meds in that case are banned. I think there are cold remedies that are O.K. to use and you can always take ibuprofen or Tylenol for injuries. What you're advocating seems to be no meds of any kind, for any condition. What about someone with depression? Or RA? High blood pressure or high cholesterol?