FancyBear day 2)

BTW. Many of these medications are of no performance enhancing use unless you are actually suffering from a condition such as asthma.

I don't think this is an argument that asthma users should thus get a TUE for them? It seems like you practically admit that the meds ARE performance-enhancing if you are an asthmatic. I'm not sure this is the argument you want to make (I though you were saying that the meds only return an asthmatic to "normal", so a TUE should be OK).

High doses of prednisone and similar anti-inflammatory steroids, for instance, over a period of time, are more likely to break down muscle than help build muscle. They are unlikely to help recovery from hard workouts. Albuterol will relax the smooth muscle in the lungs only if you are having bronchospasm from an asthma attack; otherwise, the effects are probably akin to caffeine.

Unfortunately, IMO "the asthma drugs are/aren't performance-enhancing" debate is largely corrupted by the influence of certain powerful people. Not that the accepted "wisdom" (read: WADA regime) is definitively wrong, but just that I think there are more doubts than are commonly broached.

What might most easily be said is that the use of such drugs have both positive and negative effects (for athletic performance), evenmoreso across differing length of usage, and these can vary (sometimes substantially) by individual, while in general and on average seem to approximately offset.

Latest theory is that only maybe 1/7 of the database was hacked. Maybe by some forensic analysis.

Another 48 members of Great Britain’s record-breaking Olympic team were facing their secret drug-testing records being leaked by Russian hackers on Friday.

The UK’s anti-doping agency revealed more than one in seven of the 366-strong delegation that took part in the Rio Games last month may have had their confidential files broken into by a group of cyber-criminals who have sent shockwaves through world sport.

There's also still dispute about whether "Russian hackers" are really the culprits (though it sure sounds good to the Western media).

Lots of condemnations and denials of Fancy Bears rolling in, asserting nothing untoward has occurred.

Probably just what they want, and now they will reveal the "real" stuff now that world anti-doping has committed their "we are innocent" hand already.

Over-Training wrote:

Fancybum wrote:

When your lungs close up and you're suffocating to death.

Because you overtrain and force yourself to suffer. And you don't die unless your are too stupid to stop overtraining.

No dummy people die from asthma whether they are training or not.

You must have studied a lot of Hitler's playbook

Here's the official researchers.

The "diamond model" is a graphic that shows a fancy bear (called "adversary"), some gobbledygook unrelated things, has no indication of "infrastructure", and claims "phishing" is the capabilities used. Well, that's "consistent" with a lot of tactics, not just "Russian FANCY BEAR" ones.

But of course the USA media wants to paint it as Russia/Trump behind everything.

Here's is their "analysis"

Wow, they registered domain in a five day period "consistent" wth the WADA timeline! And they used "mail.com" emails, and ititch/domains4bitcoins! Not like anyone else would ever do that...

They then proceed to give examples of other hacking by the same method, "connecting the dots" to assume that again Russians are behind it.

The short answer? They're not named "Russia", so it must be a front for Russians. Their evidence? Google (linked to the Hillary campaign), showed google.ru (RUS) and google.com (USA) instead of google.pl! So then, given this data, why not conclude they are from USA, instead of RUS? Consistent bias throughout.

The Diamond model fails wrote:

The short answer? They're not named "Russia", so it must be a front for Russians. Their evidence? Google (linked to the Hillary campaign), showed google.ru (RUS) and google.com (USA) instead of google.pl! So then, given this data, why not conclude they are from USA, instead of RUS? Consistent bias throughout.

This is pure BS. I use a VPN and it fakes Google out. Google used automatic country redirection, so Google would start in the language of the country it thought I was in. Evidently, Google does this auto-redirection because the rules for what you can search for is different for each country.

The ThreatConnect Research Team: is an elite group of globally-acknowledged cybersecurity experts, dedicated to tracking down existing and emerging cyber threats. We scrutinize trends, technology and socio-political motivators to develop comprehensive knowledge of the cyber landscape. Then, we share what we’ve learned so that you can protect your organization, and your team can take precise action against threats.

Elite group? Seems like to me it's more of a bunch of wannabe hackers who failed in the basement wars. Of course, the "global intelligence agencies" might also think Russia is behind it, but they are wrong a lot too.

Fair enough, but I think there are some really common medications that have been around a long time (many decades) for which we can make a fairly confident conclusion that no competitive advantage is gained by using them and that those using them for an appropriate condition will only return to their pre-illness baseline. I would include albuterol and prednisone on that list. I know the WADA list really well, and one the things I find frustrating as a physician for a few elite athletes (not Olympic athletes, but good enough to compete at national competitions where there is an outside chance of being tested)is that some of the medications on the list are so unlikely to give any competitive advantage and in many cases maybe a disadvantage, but we have to go through this process. Overall, I feel that WADA should be doing better in catching the real cheaters. Maybe they could do better if they concentrated their resources on those PED we know to confer an advantage such as anabolic steroids, EPO, growth hormone, etc.

I thought that I agreed with you on all this stuff …until yesterday.

Clerk posted a study on 1 week of prednisone use at 60 mg per day (in recreational athletes…not elites) that showed increases in time to exhaustion on testing. I found a another similar study by some of the same authors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805102

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048433

Here is a study using just 1 dose of 20 mg of prednisolone…which did not show an effect:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609220

This may be a lot more complicated than I thought…and may depend on which drug, dose, and number of doses, with differences between acute and chronic effects, etc., etc., etc…..

As usual…the more I learn…the more confused I am.

In conclusion:

1) I now have no idea what is going on with this topic... at the present time.

Darn.

aaaa.... wrote:

if you are an asthmatic.

And if you aren't actually an asthma sufferer, it is a fantastic weight loss mechanism. That's why they are abused so much.

ADHD meds also encourage weight loss. My understanding is the mechanism is different and not quite as efficient as the common asthma beta agonists.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:And if you aren't actually an asthma sufferer, it is a fantastic weight loss mechanism.

Are you sure? I thought prednisolone (Froome), as a steroid, was more likely to cause weight gain than loss.

Adverse effects are not generally seen with short term therapy, but weight gain, impaired immune response, and behavioral disturbances commonly occur with longer durations of treatment.

Similarly with triamcinolone acetonide (Wiggins). Maybe you mean reduce body fat percentage rather than lose weight? I think formoterol was linked to fat burning, not sure about others.

It's easy to find studies/websites claiming that "asthma drugs" are linked to either weight gain or loss, with hardly any differentation as to what is actually being used, or how the gain/loss occurs.

The ADHD meds I agree would encourage weight loss.

This is the argument I am making; albuterol returns someone suffering from an asthma attack closer to their normal - albeit probably not all the way back to their baseline. It does not give them super lung capacity. Give two people albuterol, one who does not have asthma and one who does have asthma but is not suffering from an exacerbation, and neither will gain an advantage over a third person who does not take the albuerol - presumably each will just stay at their baseline.

At least with salbutamol, you also need to ensure that the dosage is being kept within reason. With the Norwegian XC skiers, half the debacle is that they are (way) over what is allowed by WADA (which is my opinion is already on the generous side if you wanted to be "sure" about the PED benefits).

abcd1234 wrote: It's easy to find studies/websites claiming that "asthma drugs" are linked to either weight gain or loss, with hardly any differentation as to what is actually being used, or how the gain/loss occurs.

One example: Ventolin (salbutamol) is marketed firstly as a weight loss product, and only secondarily as a way of treating asthma.

Presumably non-asthmatic athletes can legally take it (up to the WADA limit of 1600ug by inhalation) and achieve the benefits of weight loss. Whether or not "healthy" athletes should be doing so is a different question.

rjm33 wrote: Clerk posted a study on 1 week of prednisone use at 60 mg per day

Do not confuse prednisone with prednisolone (which is what the article is), though due to similarities, in some cases this error won't change your conclusion much.

rjm33 wrote: Here is a study using just 1 dose of 20 mg of prednisolone…which did not show an effect:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609220

I would not draw this conclusion. Rather I would said the error margins are (too) large.

Cycling duration was not significantly changed after GC or placebo administration (55.9 (5.2) v 48.8 (2.9) minutes, respectively)

56 vs 49 is not nothing, but as said, the data are sparse.

I'm no expert. Are there objective tests for lumbago flareups that require meds, or is it just something like "my lower back hurts" (and today perhaps more than yesterday)?

Not claiming here anything against Harting, but looking to see if it's an angle to game the system (claim sudden back pain, be a good actor, get in-competition PEDs under TUE).

I have prescribed both drugs at the exact same dosage. Prednisolone has a relative anti-inflammatory effect that is 5x stronger than cortisol. Prednisone has a relative anti-inflammatory effect about 4x stronger than cortisol.

Please tell me the difference you use in your usual dose schedules that you use when you prescribe these 2 drugs to patients.

Go:

rjm33 wrote:

I have prescribed both drugs at the exact same dosage. Prednisolone has a relative anti-inflammatory effect that is 5x stronger than cortisol. Prednisone has a relative anti-inflammatory effect about 4x stronger than cortisol.

Please tell me the difference you use in your usual dose schedules that you use when you prescribe these 2 drugs to patients.

Go:

Compound Equivalent Dose Anti-inflammatory Biological Half-life

Cortisone 500 mg 0.8 0.8 Short

Hydrocortisone 400 mg 1 1 Short

Prednisone 100 mg 4 0.6 Intermediate

Prednisolone 100 mg 4 0.6 Intermediate

Triamcinolone 80 mg 5 0 Intermediate

Methylprednisolone 80 mg 5 0.25 Intermediate

Betamethasone 16 mg 25 0 Long

Dexamethasone 16 mg 25 0 Long

Fludrocortisone - 0 125 Intermediate