It's a good thing Galen Rupp isn't Norwegian. Did you know altitude chambers are banned in Norway?

Not sure exactly why, but I think some countries see it as an "unnatural" means of boosting RBC and a method that not everyone has reasonable access to. I'm sure in smaller countries without access to natural and viable altitude training locations and with fewer athletes overall, it's a bigger deal.

I thought he was a pool man. ;)

Why don't they just breathe through their nose or wear a mask then?

rojo wrote:

Does anyone know a) why they were banned or b) of any other countries that have a similar ban?

https://www.runblogrun.com/2021/01/gjert-ingebrrigtsen-has-said-jakob-filip-and-henrik-would-have-remained-training-at-home-if-the-use.html

In evaluating this one needs to understand that Norway have a fetish in being "best" in everything.

(KaareV and SprintThriatlon and others will probably disagree with me)

And this "being best" approach also goes to anti doping work (for some reason most norwegians don't dare to have a proper critical look at the practices of the Ski-federation's use of asthmatic medicine).

This is basically a result of that.

Anyways, just going by memory here, but the story goes something like this::

Norway probably lead the world in sending their endurance athletes to altitude camps in the early 90s.

That was obviously expensive as the Norwegian mountains aren't suitable, so typically they had to travel to the Alps (for winter sports) or even further for summer sports.

So some clever souls built an altitude house in Trysil;Norway in the late 90s.

First it was presented as Norway being cutting edge in technology (Bjørn Dæhlie was the first athlete to use it), but before long the mood switched and It was quickly deemed unmoral and basically considered a way of cheating.

Within a season or so it was banned for Norwegian athletes despite never being in breech of anti-doping regulations.

Fairly certain Sweden went down the same route initally, but they have long since changed their approach.

(Funny story last year was the swedish skiers criticizing norwegian skiers going to altitude camps during these corona times while using altitude houses themselves)

The debate over the absurdity of this ban have come up from time to time, but the group in the Sports Federation that thinks it's unethical since it's not "natural" and that it sends a bad signal to children have always prevailed.

The athletics federation have been fighting it for quite a few years, reasoning that it is in fact still not considered doping and arguing that it's very expensive for athletes to travel to Flagstaff, South Africa or where ever the runnes travel for their altitude training, so that it makes it harder for them to compete on even terms.

Another factor is that if you are not at the very elite level, the sponsor market in Norway isn't big enough for athletes to get good enough deals so that they can afford to travel long distance to altitude camps if not lucky with rich parents etc..

This have of course become even more of a thing in these covid times as travel is harder than before.

The sport federation's response to this now has been to get this evaluated again through a "medical ethical comission" or something like that.

If reason prevails (that's never an automatic thing in the Norwegian Sports Federation), the rule could be changed this spring.

The athletes are looking for PEDs there. I sold sauce for 10k to a Scandinavian. It had a street value of like 1200. Desperate times desperate measures

Being a fast skier in Norway is a life or death proposition because of all the bears, wolves, wolverines and mooses which we call elks. Death to the hindmost is real there.

That's why Northug compulsively drives faster than everyone else.

This is kind of a weird question.

Why wouldn't altitude tents be illegal if in the U.S. arbitrary levels of testosterone or L Carnatine is deemed illegal?

Indeed, altitude tents were illegal in the U.S. not that long ago. It is only because of a lobbying campaign by a man most people on this board hate (Salazar) that made it legal in this country.

Ryan Foreman wrote:

Indeed, altitude tents were illegal in the U.S. not that long ago. It is only because of a lobbying campaign by a man most people on this board hate (Salazar) that made it legal in this country.

When were altitude tents banned in the US?

If I remember right Italy also has a similar ban.

Ja, but what about Sverige?

Ryan Foreman wrote:

This is kind of a weird question.

Why wouldn't altitude tents be illegal if in the U.S. arbitrary levels of testosterone or L Carnatine is deemed illegal?

Indeed, altitude tents were illegal in the U.S. not that long ago. It is only because of a lobbying campaign by a man most people on this board hate (Salazar) that made it legal in this country.

I dont remember altitude tents being illegal in the US.

Why wouldn't they be illegal? Because they simulate something that could be done without too much difficulty: going to altitude to sleep every night, then driving down to lower altitude to train.

But it is expensive to have a house on the mountains and drive an hour or two down to train every day. It would make it so only the top athletes with enough money could train that way, or people willing to completely forgo having a side job to make ends meet and instead live off of their parents or friends.

An altitude tent is a few thousand bucks. Not cheap, but cheaper than years of driving a few hours every day. So it helps level the playing field.

Why should it be illegal? General feelings of it being "unnatural." Also, in theory they can malfunction and suffocate you in your sleep, and they tend to ban things that are risky, to prevent only the high risk taking athletes from using that technique. Kind of the same reason steroids are banned: they can mess up your health, and it isn't fair if only the athletes willing to get cancer at 40 can compete.

In Norway we have the Jantelov as a guideline for social norms. It says we shouldnt brag, think we are better than others, that we know more than others etc. Many people have toughts that break with that and they grow internally when you cant say them out load.

Norwegians as a people believe so much that people deserve what they got and that things shouldnt change to what many believe to be an unfair advantage

I've spent a lot of time in altitude tents. There isn't a risk of them malfunctioning and you suffocating unless you are really trying to. First off it isn't completely sealed off from the outside air just mostly sealed off. You also wake up and notice immediately when you feel like you can't breath, there were a few times early on when I set it too high which woke me up and made me jump out of the tent because I felt like I was suffocating (even though it was just the altitude). Also most people who use one (including myself) have a O2 monitor that sounds an alarm when the O2 gets below a certain percent.

rojo wrote:

Does anyone know a) why they were banned or b) of any other countries that have a similar ban?

https://www.runblogrun.com/2021/01/gjert-ingebrrigtsen-has-said-jakob-filip-and-henrik-would-have-remained-training-at-home-if-the-use.html

I have talked about this before on this website, and it is one part of my argument as why anti-doping measures are completely wrong. Most things are legal until they aren't, if you get my drift. We make a distinction about artificially increasing performance, but what does it mean to be artificial?

Why is it illegal to use Testosterone to be able to withstand higher workloads and faster recovery, but it is ok to use any sort of NASAID for same purpose? Obviously there is efficacy of each you could argue, but how do you know that Athlete A isn't a "super responder" to NSAID and gets way more out of it than Athlete B?

I say put in some absolute biological values that an athlete cannot exceed, and let them do what they want.

dullard wrote:

If I remember right Italy also has a similar ban.

Exactly!

It is considered flat out doping.

I went back and looked and you are right it wasn't illegal. But it was WADA that was seriously considering making them illegal. Their ethics panel declared sometime in the mid 00s that it violated the spirt of the sport. But they solicited advice from people in T&F. Salazar wrote an open letter to WADA defending the use of altitude tents. I couldn't find the letter online but I remember reading it online some years back. WADA ended up not keeping them legal.

Here is the NY Times article about it:

"But soon, the altitude tents and rooms may be banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA. The agency’s ethics panel recently determined that the tents and rooms violated “the spirit of sport.”

The agency said it would reach a decision in September about whether to include altitude tents and rooms on its List of Prohibited Substances and Methods for 2007. In the meantime, it is eliciting comments from its constituents, which it describes as the Olympic movement, including the International Olympic Committee and “governments of the world.”

Budda wrote:

rojo wrote:

Does anyone know a) why they were banned or b) of any other countries that have a similar ban?

https://www.runblogrun.com/2021/01/gjert-ingebrrigtsen-has-said-jakob-filip-and-henrik-would-have-remained-training-at-home-if-the-use.html

In evaluating this one needs to understand that Norway have a fetish in being "best" in everything.

(KaareV and SprintThriatlon and others will probably disagree with me)

And this "being best" approach also goes to anti doping work (for some reason most norwegians don't dare to have a proper critical look at the practices of the Ski-federation's use of asthmatic medicine).

Ahh, Budda, again. I will probably disagree with you? The master of probability theory. How did you come to that superb insight? By heavenly inspiration?

I have even critizied Norwegian Nationalistic Sport Journalism in writing, a chronicle in Norways biggest daily. I do not like this Norwegian be best 'fetish' at all. Have critized it in public over and over again. And even mentioned that to you. 'Fetish' is a good word for describeing the Norwegian attitude. So I will thank you.

But it is not always easy to understand your Universe, Budda. You think that people have agendas, actually especially me.

Your statement boils down to ? our disagreement on how Sweden has done it during the Pandemics, right?

BTW - this use of Asthma medicine was "horrendous". But Petter Northug, never ever used it.

It is easy, when one disagrees, to think that people have some hidden agendas, to conclude what they think, what they vote and so on and so forth. We have seen this play out in US.

Do you think I have streched it to far? If so you are right. Just as an illustration.

Ah Kåre!

Why so sensitive?

I said probably and you and Sprint are the only two I know to be norwegian here, so it

wasn't really more towards you than him or any other norwegian that might read it.

Call it a clumsy attempt at acknowledging in advance that I realize other norwegians might disagree with my "fetish" statement.

From experience (in other forums) I've noticed norwegians quite often get defensive when the subject of asthmatic medicine comes up.

I remember you mentioning that you have written an opinion piece on how norwegians underestimate african runners. :)

Haha.. "Horrendous" is obviously your words this time, not mine! ;P

("generous", "strategic", "tactical" and "cynical" are other options).

As in the "generous" dosages that Sundby allegedly accidentally used.

Or when they "strategically" brought more than enough asthmatic medicine to Pyongchang to serve the entire olympic village. :P

Nope. Petter Northug, the Ingebrigtsens and Warholm don't use asthma medicine. I know.

By the way. I don't especially think you have an agenda actually. Not compared to majority of posters in here to be honest. I do like to provoke a little from time to time.

Not at all sensitive. Just profylactic. I am not that sensitive to prejudices, but I like to identify them since we have a history you and I.

( Written more generally about nationalism).

And I agree with Gjert I.

"I do like to provoke from time to time". A bit conventional, don't you think?