TargetTalk

Mike M. wrote:You know, there's one solution.
Switch to black powder. The MLAIC is a lot less twitchy.

Yes true, but they explicitly tolerate doping (or what is considered such under ISSF and IPSC rules), and that liberality might turn off other athletes...

Alexander

I would not say that we tolerate doping.

What I would say is that almost all of us are true amateurs. Shooting is a hobby, not a job. We've no incentive to dope...and some of our competitors are not young.

And I dare say that the MLAIC's entire budget is considerably less than the anit-doping budget for a major sport.

Mike M. wrote:I would not say that we tolerate doping.

But the secretary general confirms so, upon inquiry. And while you may not like it, MLAIC tolerates it. On world champion level, by the way (South African shooters).

Alexander

As somebody whose blood pressure control depends on metropolol, I sympathize. I hope it won't keep me from competing at the local/US state levels, but if so, so be it. I think there needs to be a therapeutic exemption.

My BP was sky high no matter what I did, including losing significant weight. Then 2 weeks after finally agreeing to take metropolol it was in the healthy range.

At my skill level it certainly isn't making any difference in my shooting. And I cannot see it as "doping." Are there any double blind experiments to show the effects?

peterz wrote:As somebody whose blood pressure control depends on metropolol, I sympathize. I hope it won't keep me from competing at the local/US state levels, but if so, so be it. I think there needs to be a therapeutic exemption.

My BP was sky high no matter what I did, including losing significant weight. Then 2 weeks after finally agreeing to take metropolol it was in the healthy range.

At my skill level it certainly isn't making any difference in my shooting. And I cannot see it as "doping." Are there any double blind experiments to show the effects?

There can be exemptions for certain drugs, but not all. When I shot on the Canadian team, I had to get clearance to use insulin.

R.M. wrote:

peterz wrote:As somebody whose blood pressure control depends on metropolol, I sympathize. I hope it won't keep me from competing at the local/US state levels, but if so, so be it. I think there needs to be a therapeutic exemption.

My BP was sky high no matter what I did, including losing significant weight. Then 2 weeks after finally agreeing to take metropolol it was in the healthy range.

At my skill level it certainly isn't making any difference in my shooting. And I cannot see it as "doping." Are there any double blind experiments to show the effects?

There can be exemptions for certain drugs, but not all. When I shot on the Canadian team, I had to get clearance to use insulin.

You cannot get a TUE for beta-blockers in shooting.

The subject of testing was discussed at length recently on TT.

Having spoken to shooters who were involved in double blind tests 30 years ago they are certain that beta-blockers improved their performance.

Here in the UK, being on beta-blockers does not preclude you from winning an air ore small-bore British Championship provided that you declare you are on them.

Having spoken to shooters who were involved in double blind tests 30 years ago they are certain that beta-blockers improved their performance.

Thanks, David. But it seems to me that in a double-blind experiment shooters would not likely be aware of whether or not they got beta-blockers until after the shooting, and then there would be hard numbers to show the improvements -- if any. Certainly a double blind experiment requires that the subjects not know if they got a placebo or the real drug. Those administering the drugs also do not know who gets real and who gets placebo.

peterz wrote:

Having spoken to shooters who were involved in double blind tests 30 years ago they are certain that beta-blockers improved their performance.

Thanks, David. But it seems to me that in a double-blind experiment shooters would not likely be aware of whether or not they got beta-blockers until after the shooting, and then there would be hard numbers to show the improvements -- if any. Certainly a double blind experiment requires that the subjects not know if they got a placebo or the real drug. Those administering the drugs also do not know who gets real and who gets placebo.

The shooters were told who was on placebo/beta blockers after the shooting results were obtained. The science was intact.

Gus wrote:The shooters were told who was on placebo/beta blockers after the shooting results were obtained. The science was intact.

In fact they weren't told until some time after the test, so they experienced the reduction in performance without the drug as well.

As you say, the science was intact even though the samples were small. That however will always be a problem if the entire relevant population is also small.

muzzle loading is off topic !!!! Cease and desist otherwise joker will whine!

Yeah!!!

These new rules make us look like athletes alright!

Which is what the ISSF rule makers are !!! :-)

Freepistol wrote:Shooting is at least 90% mental!

And the other 10% is in the trackie dacks :)

I spoke to several of the shooters on the 25m range.

NONE said they were unhappy with the clothing rules. There might have been a few who didn't like it but I didn't hear of any.

From the spectator area it looked so much more sporting than any other range I have ever seen. This is a world class sport and is beginning to look like it.

David Levene wrote:I spoke to several of the shooters on the 25m range.

NONE said they were unhappy with the clothing rules. .

So, several shooters were OK with it. That makes it all good then I suppose.

Next they will be putting two white line on the RF target because one shooter wanted them... ...Oh, wait a minute, that's already happened.

j-team wrote:

David Levene wrote:I spoke to several of the shooters on the 25m range.

NONE said they were unhappy with the clothing rules. .

So, several shooters were OK with it. That makes it all good then I suppose.

I guess it's just as logical as saying it must be wrong because several shooters, most of whom will never compete under strict ISSF conditions, don't like it. Rules change and evolve.

peterz wrote:As somebody whose blood pressure control depends on metropolol, I sympathize. I hope it won't keep me from competing at the local/US state levels, but if so, so be it. I think there needs to be a therapeutic exemption. (...)
At my skill level it certainly isn't making any difference in my shooting. And I cannot see it as "doping."

It might not be doping for you, but it HAS been doping with others. Including one revoked Olympic medal (North Korea, free pistol, if I remember correctly).

As to David's comment, it is half right. Let me expound:

a) There have not been, and very likely will not be any TUE's for beta-blockers on international level.

b) However, there have very recently been strong voices advanced both within the ISSF's medical commitee, and within WADA, to tolerate beta-bockers on a national-only level, esp. for veteran's class.

c) With those South African doped muzzle-loaders shooting on a very high level, it IS volitional doping, rather than an nice old geezer hobbyist trying to have some fun with old weaponry still at age 70+ and not risking his life over his hobby.
We speak about performance levels where beta-blockers can and will indeed make a difference between becoming a world champion (as the most irrepentant of these dopers actually is), and being on place 4 "only".

a) There have not been, and very likely will not be any TUE's for beta-blockers on international level.

b) However, there have very recently been strong voices advanced both within the ISSF's medical commitee, and within WADA, to tolerate beta-bockers on a national-only level, esp. for veteran's class.

At 69+ I hope I qualify for 'veteran's class', but not yet 'old geezer.' ;-)

I hope that the ISSF understands that for those of us who shoot at regional levels and below, the small benefits of metropolol and similar blood pressure meds aren't making much of a difference to the results. It won't make the difference between being world champion and placing #4, or #40, or #400. At the moment it wouldn't make the difference between #40000 and #40001. But within the year I hope to be able to good enough to enter USAS zonal matches.

Unless you're a national team member for your respective NGB you aren't subject to drug testing as you've never signed an agreement and don't report your whereabouts.